Three Questions to Ask about 9/11

Submitted by Big Al on Mon, 09/11/2017 - 11:03am

There are many questions that come up about the official government story for what happened on 9/11/01 as well as many of the details about the incident as documented by many independent researchers. Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report poses three that those who still believe the official "government" story might ask themselves. Another I might add, "mother should I trust the government?".

1. Can the similarities between 9/11 and plans drawn up by the US Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in 1962 under the code name "Operation Northwoods" be easily dismissed?

The US DoD and JCS wrote a detailed plan almost identical to the 9/11 attacks as early as 1962 called "Operation Northwoods" where the US proposed hijacking commercial airliners, committing terrorist attacks, and blaming Cuba to justify a US military intervention."

"2. Why did US policymakers draw up extensive plans to reassert US global hegemony - including regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen - without any conceivable pretext until 9/11 conveniently unfolded?

In 2000, US policymakers from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) sought a sweeping plan to reassert America as a global hegemon. In a 90-page document titled, "Rebuilding America's Defense: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" (PDF), a strategy for maintaining what it called "American military preeminence" would be laid out in detail."

"3. If primarily Saudi hijackers with Saudi money and Saudi organization perpetrated the attacks of 9/11, why has the United States waged war or threatened war with every nation in the Middle East except Saudi Arabia and its allies?

Not only has the United States made no moves against Saudi Arabia for its apparent role in the 9/11 attacks - spanning the administrations of US President George Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump - the United States has sold Saudi Arabia billions in arms, provided military support and protection to Saudi Arabia's military and government, partnered with Saudi Arabia in its ongoing conflict with Yemen - all while US government documents and leaked e-mails between US politicians reveal Saudi Arabia is still a state sponsor of Al Qaeda - the organization officially blamed for the 9/11 attacks."

Comments

lies today, including Trump and Pence, their first time in office to commemorate what Dick Cheney and friends pulled off that day.
I was kind of waiting for this day, it proves Trump is gone, he's officially one of them, not that I didn't know that already. But this should settle the deal for many.

Sorry just been so focused on personal matters that today almost slipped by. I was wondering why there was a 9/11 thread.

I think out of your list Al, number 3 should be the easiest and largest flag for people to get...and yet they don't.

Hijackers were Saudi...and yet 70% if I remember right of the American people believed Iraq did it. But the government and TV told me the Iraqis did it.

lies today, including Trump and Pence, their first time in office to commemorate what Dick Cheney and friends pulled off that day.
I was kind of waiting for this day, it proves Trump is gone, he's officially one of them, not that I didn't know that already. But this should settle the deal for many.

covered up for 15 years and only recently released. Now why would this have been allowed to be covered up if there wasn't something to hide?
Bandar Bush was photographed at the WH with George and Richard the day after and then the whole family was flown out of the country while all other flights were canceled.

The Saudis can now be sued by the families whose members were killed by them.
There's just too many issues that don't add up, including who was allowed to be on the 9/11 commission.

@snoopydawg
to many inconsistencies to the official story, too many strange and suspicious connections, too many questions, too many past actions, too many lots of things. For those wanting a paper signed by Dick Cheney ordering the attack, they aren't going to get it. For those who look at most of the evidence that has been presented over the years, it's hard not to conclude there was deep state involvement.
Same with the JFK murder.

covered up for 15 years and only recently released. Now why would this have been allowed to be covered up if there wasn't something to hide?
Bandar Bush was photographed at the WH with George and Richard the day after and then the whole family was flown out of the country while all other flights were canceled.

The Saudis can now be sued by the families whose members were killed by them.
There's just too many issues that don't add up, including who was allowed to be on the 9/11 commission.

#1.1.1 to many inconsistencies to the official story, too many strange and suspicious connections, too many questions, too many past actions, too many lots of things. For those wanting a paper signed by Dick Cheney ordering the attack, they aren't going to get it. For those who look at most of the evidence that has been presented over the years, it's hard not to conclude there was deep state involvement.
Same with the JFK murder.

up

4 users have voted.

—

The Democrats are beyond morally bankrupt. The Party’s very soul has been replaced with pure ratfuckery.

These are questions we all should be asking, along with what really caused Building 7 to collapse.

If we remember, these very questions were prohibited over at the other place.

up

23 users have voted.

—

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West "...isn't the problem here that the government takes on, arbitrarily and without justification, an adversarial attitude towards its citizenry?" ~CantStoptheMacedonianSignal

@gulfgal98
Ya, over 16 years later they still won't talk about it. Shows the power of societal pressure, kind of like peer pressure only different.
Figured someone should put something up, it is 9/11, no use ignoring it.

These are questions we all should be asking, along with what really caused Building 7 to collapse.

If we remember, these very questions were prohibited over at the other place.

And thank you for doing so! Nothing about the 'official story' vs their responses and what actually happened makes sense.

#2 Ya, over 16 years later they still won't talk about it. Shows the power of societal pressure, kind of like peer pressure only different.
Figured someone should put something up, it is 9/11, no use ignoring it.

up

9 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

@gulfgal98
Regardless of anyone's conclusions regarding the September 11th attack (including my own), I have never heard ANY explanation of its collapse and fall that convinces me that its straight downward fall was because it was 150 yards away from the Twin Towers.

These are questions we all should be asking, along with what really caused Building 7 to collapse.

If we remember, these very questions were prohibited over at the other place.

@Hillbilly Dem
Just because there is no example in the history of engineering of a fire of that magnitude bringing down a skyscraper, let alone in a manner identical to a controlled demolition, you label the careful work of the 9-11 Commission some kind of conspiracy.

#2 Regardless of anyone's conclusions regarding the September 11th attack (including my own), I have never heard ANY explanation of its collapse and fall that convinces me that its straight downward fall was because it was 150 yards away from the Twin Towers.

Just because there is no example in the history of engineering of a fire of that magnitude bringing down a skyscraper,

1. There was no example in the history of engineering of a fire of that magnitude in any skyscraper, especially one based on as large scale of burning liquid accelerants. 9/11 was the first one meeting both criteria. The 1945 B-25 crash into the Empire State Building involved only a tiny fraction of the fuel that the 9/11 incidents did. The perpetrators of the crimes deliberately chose planes flying nonstop to destinations well west of the Mississippi River so they would be carrying as much fuel on board as possible.

2. The World Trade Center buildings, especially the Twin Towers, were built without internal interstitial load-bearing walls in order to maximize the potential for profit. The Empire State Building has these. With the design of the Towers being what it was, a vertical collapse from fire weakening of the connections between the floor structures and the facades and core is the natural result, no conspiracies required.

If the 9/11 Commnission's results are a cover-up of anything, it's shitty avant-garde "engineering".

#2.2
Just because there is no example in the history of engineering of a fire of that magnitude bringing down a skyscraper, let alone in a manner identical to a controlled demolition, you label the careful work of the 9-11 Commission some kind of conspiracy.

up

7 users have voted.

—

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

@thanatokephaloides
as well as we know it now, how complicit the MSM has been with these shenannigans. It didn't begin to dawn on me how severe the problem was until I saw how CNN had completely staged the toppling of Saddam's statue. Some claim the footage of planes crashing into the towers has lots of CGI going on and say there were no planes at all.

The one I find most ludicrous is finding one of the highjacker's passport, relatively intact, in the rubble. It's the silly, stupid lies that make you take a second look at the bigger picture.

Just because there is no example in the history of engineering of a fire of that magnitude bringing down a skyscraper,

1. There was no example in the history of engineering of a fire of that magnitude in any skyscraper, especially one based on as large scale of burning liquid accelerants. 9/11 was the first one meeting both criteria. The 1945 B-25 crash into the Empire State Building involved only a tiny fraction of the fuel that the 9/11 incidents did. The perpetrators of the crimes deliberately chose planes flying nonstop to destinations well west of the Mississippi River so they would be carrying as much fuel on board as possible.

2. The World Trade Center buildings, especially the Twin Towers, were built without internal interstitial load-bearing walls in order to maximize the potential for profit. The Empire State Building has these. With the design of the Towers being what it was, a vertical collapse from fire weakening of the connections between the floor structures and the facades and core is the natural result, no conspiracies required.

If the 9/11 Commnission's results are a cover-up of anything, it's shitty avant-garde "engineering".

He was at work on the roof of a building about 30 blocks away and saw the whole thing happen.

#2.2.1.1 as well as we know it now, how complicit the MSM has been with these shenannigans. It didn't begin to dawn on me how severe the problem was until I saw how CNN had completely staged the toppling of Saddam's statue. Some claim the footage of planes crashing into the towers has lots of CGI going on and say there were no planes at all.

The one I find most ludicrous is finding one of the highjacker's passport, relatively intact, in the rubble. It's the silly, stupid lies that make you take a second look at the bigger picture.

I'm not able to copy this picture that shows that the plane that hit the pentagon was American Airlines.
It's the 3rd picture in. Just a bit too convenient, IMO.

Another thing to notice in these pictures is that all the workers are wearing masks. Remember that Christine Whitman told the people that were working at ground zero that the air was safe to breathe. Many of those people have died from the contaminated air. For years congress would not authorize money for the workers who were sick. They were treated just like returning veterans.

#2.2.1.1 as well as we know it now, how complicit the MSM has been with these shenannigans. It didn't begin to dawn on me how severe the problem was until I saw how CNN had completely staged the toppling of Saddam's statue. Some claim the footage of planes crashing into the towers has lots of CGI going on and say there were no planes at all.

The one I find most ludicrous is finding one of the highjacker's passport, relatively intact, in the rubble. It's the silly, stupid lies that make you take a second look at the bigger picture.

up

10 users have voted.

—

The Democrats are beyond morally bankrupt. The Party’s very soul has been replaced with pure ratfuckery.

... The FBI photos were first released to the public in 2011, but due to a computer glitch where they were stored, the images disappeared from public record until March 2017. ...

The US government does seem to have difficulty finding good tech support...

Looking at the Pentagon shots, I'm again impressed at the nicely circular holes shown in the walls, as I would have expected at least the bricks to have been damaged outside of the impact hole. But then again, the building had only just been renovated.

... On Sept. 11, the contract officially complete, Fraunfelter was finishing up a few last punch-list items. He arrived on-site at 7 a.m. to prepare for an 8 a.m. tenant meeting. It was a routine job-completion task, a meeting where tenants handed over a list of final fix-it items: touch-up painting, leaking pipes, etc. [MSNBC]

American Airlines Flight 77 struck the portion of the building that had already been renovated. It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes--enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety.

The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows--2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each--that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out.

"This was a terrible tragedy, but I'm here to tell you that if we had not undertaken these efforts in the building, this could have been much, much worse," Evey said. "The fact that they happened to hit an area that we had built so sturdily was a wonderful gift."

The rest of the Pentagon would not have fared as well. ...

...KING: Michael, the Pentagon was kind of lucky in a sense, wasn't it?

FLOCCO: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

KING: The side they hit wasn't that populated and it didn't make a direct, full -- like top of the Pentagon hit, right?

FLOCCO: Correct. Also, the other contributing factors -- fewer engines -- was the fact that it hit initially on the newly renovated section that had (UNINTELLIGIBLE) wire inside of -- able to withstand more of an impact.

Plus, some of the columns and the windows had previously been reinforced for the first phase of the renovation. It was a five-phase renovation program. The first phase had just been completed only a week before. And where the plane hit was under restructured, reinforced part of it. So initially, it hit a very solid part and then, glanced off of that and went into the old section that had just been evacuated for phase two renovation. Had it hit anywhere else, it could have been catastrophic. [CNN]

... "We were watching the news in the Media Relations Division, and it sounded as if a bomb hit the Pentagon," said Tesia Williams, a public affairs specialist in Headquarters. On 9-11 she was a public affairs intern finishing her Pentagon rotation. "We looked around in shock. We were close enough to the impact to hear a loud boom, and there was some vibration. Ceiling tiles didn't fall, but there was vibration.

"So we gathered our belongings and left," Williams said. "I don't remember any kind of alarm. There was definitely no loud ringing or lights flashing or any type of warning that I would think we'd have in the Pentagon. But, of course, we knew to evacuate." ...

... "I had a book of matches in my pocket, and I pulled it out and struck a match so Jim and Gene could find their tool kits," Hoffman said. "They got their flashlights, and that's how we were able to see. ...
... "We got lost three times trying to get out of Wedge One," Hoffman said. "We kept running into doors that were locked from the other side. You needed a key to get out that way, but we only had access through our conference room. Eventually we had to come all the way back and through our conference room to get out."

"We were in the hallway on the E Ring heading toward the second corridor," Hoffman said. "It was horrible. We could feel the heat from the fire, and the hallway was filled with thick, black smoke. We couldn't see, we couldn't breathe. We got down on the floor and crawled. I had my beret covering my mouth and Jim and Gene had their handkerchiefs so we could breathe."

"Then we heard voices," Hoffman said. "We heard somebody calling, 'Is anybody in there?' So we followed those voices, and they walked us down to the loading dock. We jumped off the loading dock, and circled around to where the plane hit, and that's when we saw the damage and the smoke billowing over the Pentagon. ...

... "We were in the renovated part of the Pentagon. It had been reinforced with a steel framework, and there were Kevlar blankets in the walls," Hoffman said. "We found a crack two inches wide in the wall of our conference room from floor to ceiling. If those renovations hadn't been there, I know that explosion would have destroyed us. If I hadn't delayed taking my break, if we hadn't heard those voices that led us out, I wouldn't be here." ...

So there don't seem to have been any alarms or, as mentioned in the first article, automatically opening fire-doors mentioned at all in the second article, involving some of the escapees from the newly renovated wing?

(Below quote from first article)

... The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows--2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each--that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out. ...

The Pentagon, like Wall St., kept running, even though many people working there didn't, which struck me as typical priority-setting. The essential infrastructure for 'business as usual' survived where many people didn't, with many dying later to achieve this.

I keep thinking of the 9/11 warnings famously ignored by the Bush Admin, particularly one involving then-President Bush telling one messenger that he'd 'covered his ass' by giving him such a warning not all that long before the disaster struck... and of how the slow murder of a half-million children was considered 'worthwhile' by Albright... and so many other nightmares created by such monsters...

I'm not able to copy this picture that shows that the plane that hit the pentagon was American Airlines.
It's the 3rd picture in. Just a bit too convenient, IMO.

Another thing to notice in these pictures is that all the workers are wearing masks. Remember that Christine Whitman told the people that were working at ground zero that the air was safe to breathe. Many of those people have died from the contaminated air. For years congress would not authorize money for the workers who were sick. They were treated just like returning veterans.

up

11 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

@snoopydawg
there is no doubt in the mind of any person thinking rationally that American Airlines flight 77 flew into the pentagon. a photo of a bit of metal with the AA serial number is an insignificant additional datum above/beyond the numerous eyewitness accounts from dozens of people who actually saw the plane hit the building, nevermind the eyewitness accounts from hundreds of people who saw the plane flying low and fast towards the building and the no-witness accounts from exactly 0 people who claim to have seen the plane flying away afterwards.

anyone entertaining one single teensy weensy shred of doubt that AA 77 flew into the pentagon, killing everyone on board, has quite simply abandoned reason with respect to these events.

I'm not able to copy this picture that shows that the plane that hit the pentagon was American Airlines.
It's the 3rd picture in. Just a bit too convenient, IMO.

Another thing to notice in these pictures is that all the workers are wearing masks. Remember that Christine Whitman told the people that were working at ground zero that the air was safe to breathe. Many of those people have died from the contaminated air. For years congress would not authorize money for the workers who were sick. They were treated just like returning veterans.

@UntimelyRippd
there is obviously considerable doubt, in the minds of many rational people, as to exactly what occurred at the Pentagon and elsewhere on 9/11. The fact that you scornfully dismiss all these doubts, and consider anyone who has them to be utterly irrational, is not a convincing argument for your point of view.

Your analysis (and the official one) might be correct. Or it might not be. There is considerable evidence that could support either conclusion. But it seems quite clear to me that the 9/11 Commission's so-called "investigation" of the matter was a sham, and that as such, it raised many more doubts and questions than it ever answered.

#2.2.1.1.1.2
there is no doubt in the mind of any person thinking rationally that American Airlines flight 77 flew into the pentagon. a photo of a bit of metal with the AA serial number is an insignificant additional datum above/beyond the numerous eyewitness accounts from dozens of people who actually saw the plane hit the building, nevermind the eyewitness accounts from hundreds of people who saw the plane flying low and fast towards the building and the no-witness accounts from exactly 0 people who claim to have seen the plane flying away afterwards.

anyone entertaining one single teensy weensy shred of doubt that AA 77 flew into the pentagon, killing everyone on board, has quite simply abandoned reason with respect to these events.

@native
about exactly what happened at the Pentagon, but there can be no doubt by anyone thinking rationally that American Airlines 77 flew into the Pentagon. If you doubt that American Airlines 77 flew into that building, you are mistaken, period. That's the entirety of it. It is as sure as anything can be sure. If you can be persuaded to doubt this, you can be persuaded to doubt quite literally anything, if it only suits your suspicions and internal motivations to be of doubt.

It is, in fact, my first test whenever someone attempts to engage me in a conversation about alternative hypotheses concerning any/all of the events of 9/11/2001. If the person doubts that American Airlines 77 flew into the Pentagon, then there is nothing left to talk about with respect to anything else, because, in regards to 9/11, the person is evidently immune to straightforward factual evidence. To doubt that AA77 flew into the Pentagon is precisely as irrational as to doubt that 20 children were shot dead at Sandy Hook, or that millions of Jews died in the camps of the holocaust, or that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, or that the earth is round, or that the twin towers were struck by jet airliners, or even to doubt that the twin towers ever actually collapsed. It's rather more irrational than doubting that CO2 emissions are causing global climate change, though of course they are.

#2.2.1.1.1.2.2
there is obviously considerable doubt, in the minds of many rational people, as to exactly what occurred at the Pentagon and elsewhere on 9/11. The fact that you scornfully dismiss all these doubts, and consider anyone who has them to be utterly irrational, is not a convincing argument for your point of view.

Your analysis (and the official one) might be correct. Or it might not be. There is considerable evidence that could support either conclusion. But it seems quite clear to me that the 9/11 Commission's so-called "investigation" of the matter was a sham, and that as such, it raised many more doubts and questions than it ever answered.

@gustogirl
Check any report of natural or man-made disasters, and you'll find oddities by the score. Tornado takes out this house, spares that one, drops a teddy bear (or whatever) from the first house into the road, etc.

Strange things happen under extreme conditions.

#2.2.1.1 as well as we know it now, how complicit the MSM has been with these shenannigans. It didn't begin to dawn on me how severe the problem was until I saw how CNN had completely staged the toppling of Saddam's statue. Some claim the footage of planes crashing into the towers has lots of CGI going on and say there were no planes at all.

The one I find most ludicrous is finding one of the highjacker's passport, relatively intact, in the rubble. It's the silly, stupid lies that make you take a second look at the bigger picture.

@thanatokephaloides
I am replying to a comment about building 7. It wasn't hit by an airplane. It had minor fires transmitted from the other two buildings. The fire in building 7 gave off black smoke. It was not a hot fire. It was on one side of some floors of the building. There is nothing that happened to building 7 that would explain its collapse in a manner identical to a controlled demolition. It's not clear what would have made it collapse at all.

Just because there is no example in the history of engineering of a fire of that magnitude bringing down a skyscraper,

1. There was no example in the history of engineering of a fire of that magnitude in any skyscraper, especially one based on as large scale of burning liquid accelerants. 9/11 was the first one meeting both criteria. The 1945 B-25 crash into the Empire State Building involved only a tiny fraction of the fuel that the 9/11 incidents did. The perpetrators of the crimes deliberately chose planes flying nonstop to destinations well west of the Mississippi River so they would be carrying as much fuel on board as possible.

2. The World Trade Center buildings, especially the Twin Towers, were built without internal interstitial load-bearing walls in order to maximize the potential for profit. The Empire State Building has these. With the design of the Towers being what it was, a vertical collapse from fire weakening of the connections between the floor structures and the facades and core is the natural result, no conspiracies required.

If the 9/11 Commnission's results are a cover-up of anything, it's shitty avant-garde "engineering".

#2.2
Just because there is no example in the history of engineering of a fire of that magnitude bringing down a skyscraper, let alone in a manner identical to a controlled demolition, you label the careful work of the 9-11 Commission some kind of conspiracy.

@gulfgal98
it was not only not hit by an airplane that day, but there was the statement "let's pull it"
The other thing that happened that day was a foreign tv news show was on live and the anchor woman told everyone that building 7 had just collapsed. However, while she was saying this, the building was still standing and didn't collapse for another 20 minutes.

Then there are the stock options on the airlines that were put in place days or months before 9/11/2001.
People were told to stay home that day.
Certain government employees were told not to fly commercial beginning in June 2011.

That event has been hashed and rehashed for 16 years, and there are so many other details that shows that this was a false flag attack or a "New Pearl Harbor".
But as you stated, this is the nail in the coffin for me:"Operation Northwoods"

These are questions we all should be asking, along with what really caused Building 7 to collapse.

If we remember, these very questions were prohibited over at the other place.

up

24 users have voted.

—

The Democrats are beyond morally bankrupt. The Party’s very soul has been replaced with pure ratfuckery.

@snoopydawg
is the fact that the Pentagon itself was attacked, yet no one scrambled. There were plenty of USAF assets nearby, yet none did anything. Imagine, the very seat of US power is attacked, and yet the response is crickets.

No one talks about this, but either all of their models were wrong, or they were told to stand down, or something. They were either incompetent or complicit, or both.

#2
it was not only not hit by an airplane that day, but there was the statement "let's pull it"
The other thing that happened that day was a foreign tv news show was on live and the anchor woman told everyone that building 7 had just collapsed. However, while she was saying this, the building was still standing and didn't collapse for another 20 minutes.

Then there are the stock options on the airlines that were put in place days or months before 9/11/2001.
People were told to stay home that day.
Certain government employees were told not to fly commercial beginning in June 2011.

That event has been hashed and rehashed for 16 years, and there are so many other details that shows that this was a false flag attack or a "New Pearl Harbor".
But as you stated, this is the nail in the coffin for me:"Operation Northwoods"

@dervish
In one of the most restricted air space and not one military jet was scrambled. Some reports have stated that the military was practicing a drill that day and that's why they weren't scrambled. I call bs on this. How much time was there between the 4 attacks? After the first tower was hit, those jets would have been told of it and they would have been scrambled.

The other thing to notice is that during the London, Boston and other "terrorist" attacks, the authorities were also doing drills. This can't be a coincidence.

Another question to be asked is why were all the surveillance videos around the pentagon gathered up by the FBI? What did those videos show hitting the pentagon? And where was the plane engines, seats, bodies and most importantly, the plane's black box?

The area of the pentagon that was hit just conveniently held the data for the $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld said was missing. And does anyone believe that there wasn't another backup for the files somewhere else?

#2.3 is the fact that the Pentagon itself was attacked, yet no one scrambled. There were plenty of USAF assets nearby, yet none did anything. Imagine, the very seat of US power is attacked, and yet the response is crickets.

No one talks about this, but either all of their models were wrong, or they were told to stand down, or something. They were either incompetent or complicit, or both.

up

15 users have voted.

—

The Democrats are beyond morally bankrupt. The Party’s very soul has been replaced with pure ratfuckery.

Plus I recall that essential documents required to hold the chemical industry accountable were conveniently destroyed in 9/11, which spared the perpetrators the consequences.

Sorta like Bush 2 destroying the EPA libraries with similar results, in sparing them regulations, and with the same things happening with Mini-Me-Bush Harper, when he was cheated in as Canadian Prime Minister by US business interests after going to the US and promising them more drained from Canadians than anyone else would consider.

It's a trend, isn't it? The Psychopaths That Be always want the same destructive things, and tend to recycle the same propaganda/suppression tactics.

#2.3.1
In one of the most restricted air space and not one military jet was scrambled. Some reports have stated that the military was practicing a drill that day and that's why they weren't scrambled. I call bs on this. How much time was there between the 4 attacks? After the first tower was hit, those jets would have been told of it and they would have been scrambled.

The other thing to notice is that during the London, Boston and other "terrorist" attacks, the authorities were also doing drills. This can't be a coincidence.

Another question to be asked is why were all the surveillance videos around the pentagon gathered up by the FBI? What did those videos show hitting the pentagon? And where was the plane engines, seats, bodies and most importantly, the plane's black box?

The area of the pentagon that was hit just conveniently held the data for the $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld said was missing. And does anyone believe that there wasn't another backup for the files somewhere else?

up

12 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

No one talks about this, but either all of their models were wrong, or they were told to stand down, or something. They were either incompetent or complicit, or both.

With Dumbya the Shrub at the switch, there's plenty enough incompetency to cover all....

#2.3 is the fact that the Pentagon itself was attacked, yet no one scrambled. There were plenty of USAF assets nearby, yet none did anything. Imagine, the very seat of US power is attacked, and yet the response is crickets.

No one talks about this, but either all of their models were wrong, or they were told to stand down, or something. They were either incompetent or complicit, or both.

up

5 users have voted.

—

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

@thanatokephaloides
Cheney was in charge right after the attacks because George was still sitting in the classroom. He sat there for almost 10 minutes after he was informed that the first plane successfully hit the tower.
Then he flew around for the rest of day just incase he was in danger.

@snoopydawg
Someone who goes live-skeet shooting and winds up peppering his shooting partner's face with smallshot is certifiably NOT competent.

#2.3.1.2
Cheney was in charge right after the attacks because George was still sitting in the classroom. He sat there for almost 10 minutes after he was informed that the first plane successfully hit the tower.
Then he flew around for the rest of day just incase he was in danger.

'Cause if terrorists are flying around in airplanes, the safest place for a prime target - the Vice President - to be is clearly in an airplane, in the air, right up there with them and easily smashed with one of those suicide planes. One might almost think Cheney knew that he wouldn't be personally targeted...

Edited to add an 's' that didn't go through.

#2.3.1.2
Cheney was in charge right after the attacks because George was still sitting in the classroom. He sat there for almost 10 minutes after he was informed that the first plane successfully hit the tower.
Then he flew around for the rest of day just incase he was in danger.

up

2 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

@Ellen North
from one "secure hiding place" to another. Cheney went to ground and stayed put. I remember being certain that he was hiding under Mount Weather (the "super-secret" hideout in the Blue Ridge that everybody knew was there - it's now "officially" used by FEMA). But there are many holes he could have dived into.

'Cause if terrorists are flying around in airplanes, the safest place for a prime target - the Vice President - to be is clearly in an airplane, in the air, right up there with them and easily smashed with one of those suicide planes. One might almost think Cheney knew that he wouldn't be personally targeted...

@dervish
in that 9/11 ointment, hardly any space is left for the ointment. It's more like a jar full of pickled flies.

#2.3 is the fact that the Pentagon itself was attacked, yet no one scrambled. There were plenty of USAF assets nearby, yet none did anything. Imagine, the very seat of US power is attacked, and yet the response is crickets.

No one talks about this, but either all of their models were wrong, or they were told to stand down, or something. They were either incompetent or complicit, or both.

Oh, yes, at least some of us remember this. Made me wonder at the time, although they were certainly deeply concerned about not being labelled a CT site.

So there was no wonder as to why so many Bernie supporters - prior to The Decree (and later en masse bannings) were flagged and/or attacked for posting Hillary speeches, even with no text at all, just the video of what Her said - that being CT and all...

These are questions we all should be asking, along with what really caused Building 7 to collapse.

If we remember, these very questions were prohibited over at the other place.

up

6 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Oh, yes, at least some of us remember this. Made me wonder at the time, although they were certainly deeply concerned about not being labelled a CT site.

So there was no wonder as to why so many Bernie supporters - prior to The Decree (and later en masse bannings) were flagged and/or attacked for posting Hillary speeches, even with no text at all, just the video of what Her said - that being CT and all...

I believe in conspiracies.
I believe 9/11 was conspired to co-opt democracy from the 99%.
I believe the 1962 plan was only the beginning.
I believe the 2000 plan was the call to action.
I believe 9/11 was performed to perfection by our government to begin the transition to American-made facism.

Look where we are 16 years later. America is STILL asleep at the wheel. Thank goodness so many Americans have their devices to keep them nominally awake. Those without devices are poor and homeless and not a bother to the 1% as planned.

I believe we are victims of the 1%, but we have allowed this to happen because they gave us the fairy tale of the American Dream to keep us busy while they conspired to co-opt everything out from under us. Look how many people have not recovered. Look how many people, me included, are one disaster away from losing their home.

I've worked hard all my life and feel like I have nothing to show for it. It's part of the plan.

I believe in conspiracies.

up

29 users have voted.

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Who are people trying to kid anymore? All this stuff if out in the open, we know it, everyone knows it, but few still want to talk about it.
Amazing.

I believe in conspiracies.
I believe 9/11 was conspired to co-opt democracy from the 99%.
I believe the 1962 plan was only the beginning.
I believe the 2000 plan was the call to action.
I believe 9/11 was performed to perfection by our government to begin the transition to American-made facism.

Look where we are 16 years later. America is STILL asleep at the wheel. Thank goodness so many Americans have their devices to keep them nominally awake. Those without devices are poor and homeless and not a bother to the 1% as planned.

I believe we are victims of the 1%, but we have allowed this to happen because they gave us the fairy tale of the American Dream to keep us busy while they conspired to co-opt everything out from under us. Look how many people have not recovered. Look how many people, me included, are one disaster away from losing their home.

I've worked hard all my life and feel like I have nothing to show for it. It's part of the plan.

@Raggedy Ann
After reading Alligator Ed's essay on Charlottesville, I decided to do more research on my own. As a result, I am thoroughly convinced that the car ramming the anti-Nazi protesters was a staged event using crisis actors. I have thought about posting all the analyzed videos and testimony here, but am not sure what good it would do now, except to challenge folks to be more skeptical and less likely to rely on what they see or hear via the media.

Skepticism, even if proven to be false later, is healthy.

I believe in conspiracies.
I believe 9/11 was conspired to co-opt democracy from the 99%.
I believe the 1962 plan was only the beginning.
I believe the 2000 plan was the call to action.
I believe 9/11 was performed to perfection by our government to begin the transition to American-made facism.

Look where we are 16 years later. America is STILL asleep at the wheel. Thank goodness so many Americans have their devices to keep them nominally awake. Those without devices are poor and homeless and not a bother to the 1% as planned.

I believe we are victims of the 1%, but we have allowed this to happen because they gave us the fairy tale of the American Dream to keep us busy while they conspired to co-opt everything out from under us. Look how many people have not recovered. Look how many people, me included, are one disaster away from losing their home.

I've worked hard all my life and feel like I have nothing to show for it. It's part of the plan.

I believe in conspiracies.

up

17 users have voted.

—

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West "...isn't the problem here that the government takes on, arbitrarily and without justification, an adversarial attitude towards its citizenry?" ~CantStoptheMacedonianSignal

@gulfgal98
I have heard about the crisis actors who were used in other events, especially the Boston bombing. One or two people were seen at other events.
I do agree with you that C'ville was a planned event and that the police were told to stand down. But what actually happened to Heather then?

#3 After reading Alligator Ed's essay on Charlottesville, I decided to do more research on my own. As a result, I am thoroughly convinced that the car ramming the anti-Nazi protesters was a staged event using crisis actors. I have thought about posting all the analyzed videos and testimony here, but am not sure what good it would do now, except to challenge folks to be more skeptical and less likely to rely on what they see or hear via the media.

Skepticism, even if proven to be false later, is healthy.

up

7 users have voted.

—

The Democrats are beyond morally bankrupt. The Party’s very soul has been replaced with pure ratfuckery.

@snoopydawg
was reported to have died from a heart attack, not from being hit by the car. It is very possible that part is true because photographs of her prior to the event show a woman who was very obese and who smoked. Just because other parts of the event were staged does not mean that all participants were actors or that she did not die. It is quite possible that she may have been a real victim in a staged event.

#3.2
I have heard about the crisis actors who were used in other events, especially the Boston bombing. One or two people were seen at other events.
I do agree with you that C'ville was a planned event and that the police were told to stand down. But what actually happened to Heather then?

up

1 user has voted.

—

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West "...isn't the problem here that the government takes on, arbitrarily and without justification, an adversarial attitude towards its citizenry?" ~CantStoptheMacedonianSignal

@snoopydawg
was reported to have died from a heart attack, not from being hit by the car. It is very possible that part is true because photographs of her prior to the event show a woman who was very obese and who smoked. Just because other parts of the event were staged does not mean that all participants were actors or that she did not die. It is quite possible that she may have been a real victim in a staged event.

#3.2
I have heard about the crisis actors who were used in other events, especially the Boston bombing. One or two people were seen at other events.
I do agree with you that C'ville was a planned event and that the police were told to stand down. But what actually happened to Heather then?

up

1 user has voted.

—

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West "...isn't the problem here that the government takes on, arbitrarily and without justification, an adversarial attitude towards its citizenry?" ~CantStoptheMacedonianSignal

@Raggedy Ann
how shocked we all were at events and what transpired after 9/11. The Shock Doctrine was hard at work in America while we still clung to the American ideals we had been taught and wanted to be true, that we wanted to actualize.

We didn't LET anything happen. They manipulated the public, which lacked the cynicism necessary to see through the illusions.

But since then, the public has become increasingly cynical and disgusted by the corruption that has become almost openly shameless and arrogant. They have us where they want us. We are powerless until we rise up as a united people. So the plan is to keep us divided and at odds with each other. Fox laid the groundwork for that.

I believe in conspiracies.
I believe 9/11 was conspired to co-opt democracy from the 99%.
I believe the 1962 plan was only the beginning.
I believe the 2000 plan was the call to action.
I believe 9/11 was performed to perfection by our government to begin the transition to American-made facism.

Look where we are 16 years later. America is STILL asleep at the wheel. Thank goodness so many Americans have their devices to keep them nominally awake. Those without devices are poor and homeless and not a bother to the 1% as planned.

I believe we are victims of the 1%, but we have allowed this to happen because they gave us the fairy tale of the American Dream to keep us busy while they conspired to co-opt everything out from under us. Look how many people have not recovered. Look how many people, me included, are one disaster away from losing their home.

I've worked hard all my life and feel like I have nothing to show for it. It's part of the plan.

Considering the amount of propaganda pumped into the American public and the length of time involved, it's amazing that so many people are not utterly brainwashed and are capable of critical thinking. And on these must our hopes rest - and renew.

#3 how shocked we all were at events and what transpired after 9/11. The Shock Doctrine was hard at work in America while we still clung to the American ideals we had been taught and wanted to be true, that we wanted to actualize.

We didn't LET anything happen. They manipulated the public, which lacked the cynicism necessary to see through the illusions.

But since then, the public has become increasingly cynical and disgusted by the corruption that has become almost openly shameless and arrogant. They have us where they want us. We are powerless until we rise up as a united people. So the plan is to keep us divided and at odds with each other. Fox laid the groundwork for that.

up

3 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

I believe in conspiracies.
I believe 9/11 was conspired to co-opt democracy from the 99%.
I believe the 1962 plan was only the beginning.
I believe the 2000 plan was the call to action.
I believe 9/11 was performed to perfection by our government to begin the transition to American-made facism.

Look where we are 16 years later. America is STILL asleep at the wheel. Thank goodness so many Americans have their devices to keep them nominally awake. Those without devices are poor and homeless and not a bother to the 1% as planned.

I believe we are victims of the 1%, but we have allowed this to happen because they gave us the fairy tale of the American Dream to keep us busy while they conspired to co-opt everything out from under us. Look how many people have not recovered. Look how many people, me included, are one disaster away from losing their home.

I've worked hard all my life and feel like I have nothing to show for it. It's part of the plan.

I believe in conspiracies.

up

7 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

@EdMass
I'm not with them, so the question is "was it all their fault"? And no, there were various players, Israel Mossad, CIA, MI6, Saudi Arabia, etc. Plenty of blame to go around which is why the entire world remains mum about the real truth.

Ya, it has been going on for centuries. Still works.

This crap has gone on for centuries.

The Levant. Spain. France stops the Hordes invasion.

I'm not buying this.

They, yes, they/we are still at fault for our sins. And "them"? Free Pass?

"They" continue this obsession. "They" still have a "religion" that seeks out to destroy those that believe in the Trinity.

Allua Akbar, does not mean "God is Great" it means "My God is greater then your God"

#4 I'm not with them, so the question is "was it all their fault"? And no, there were various players, Israel Mossad, CIA, MI6, Saudi Arabia, etc. Plenty of blame to go around which is why the entire world remains mum about the real truth.

Ya, it has been going on for centuries. Still works.

up

3 users have voted.

—

“The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy defines the marketing devision of the Sirius Cybernetic Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.”

They, yes, they/we are still at fault for our sins. And "them"? Free Pass?

"They" continue this obsession. "They" still have a "religion" that seeks out to destroy those that believe in the Trinity.

Allua Akbar, does not mean "God is Great" it means "My God is greater then your God"

Your answer to "them"?

Or it's just all our fault?

Yea!

All of this!

At worst, the 9/11 arch-crime was caused by the rich fuckers in charge of our predominant religion and our government conspiring with the rich fuckers in charge of the single entity that is the government and religion of Saudi Arabia, with a little help from some specialist criminals imported from Egypt, to gin up the American people into parting with ever more enormous amounts of their blood and treasure to support Saudi Wahhabism against its many (and reasonable) adversaries.

The vast majority of Americans have no dog in that fight.

It only costs the vast majority of us. There is no benefit, only loss. But the class of the wealthiest and most powerful in both societies, ours and the Saudis, profit handsomely.

It turned out exactly as Hermann Goering laid out:

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

And if you can show them being attacked, as what happened on 9/11, all the better.

The fact that there was a large pool of our erstwhile "allies" who wanted to destroy major parts of our culture (female equality, open society, Trinitarian religion) made it even easier.

It still boils down to the same thing: a ginned-up war that is still a "rich man's war and a poor man's fight".

This crap has gone on for centuries.

The Levant. Spain. France stops the Hordes invasion.

I'm not buying this.

They, yes, they/we are still at fault for our sins. And "them"? Free Pass?

"They" continue this obsession. "They" still have a "religion" that seeks out to destroy those that believe in the Trinity.

Allua Akbar, does not mean "God is Great" it means "My God is greater then your God"

Your answer to "them"?

Or it's just all our fault?

Yea!

up

19 users have voted.

—

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

Allua Akbar, does not mean "God is Great" it means "My God is greater then your God"

Muslims do not believe the Christian or Judaic God is different from their own. They,like all western religions, believe there is but one god. Muslims, like Christians and Jews, draw on the Abrahamic tradition. The three religions are inextricably entwined.

This crap has gone on for centuries.

The Levant. Spain. France stops the Hordes invasion.

I'm not buying this.

They, yes, they/we are still at fault for our sins. And "them"? Free Pass?

"They" continue this obsession. "They" still have a "religion" that seeks out to destroy those that believe in the Trinity.

Allua Akbar, does not mean "God is Great" it means "My God is greater then your God"

Allua Akbar, does not mean "God is Great" it means "My God is greater then your God"

Muslims do not believe the Christian or Judaic God is different from their own. They,like all western religions, believe there is but one god. Muslims, like Christians and Jews, draw on the Abrahamic tradition. The three religions are inextricably entwined.

Thanks! The whole nonsense stinks to high heaven, and it's good to get a giggle out of it, now and then, considering the horrors involved with which Americans have - and the world has - to live, while they can...

2. Because global hegemony is their religion. Of course they drew up a plan for it. They would have acted on that plan, to whatever extent they could -- including endless propaganda -- even if 9/11 had never happened.

3. Because the Saudis are already under their hegemonic control, so lashing out at the Saudis over the actions of certain Saudi citizens would have been pointless to them. With respect to your own interpretation of events, and Question 3, I would ask you this: If 9/11 was a false flag operation carried out by evil genius masterminds capable of organizing and executing a rather extraordinary and far-reaching conspiracy, with the intent of justifying military action against Iraq and the Taliban and whomever else, why did they choose Saudi citizens to carry it out? Point 3 argues against the false flag hypothesis, not for it.

The general flaw in almost all of the false-flag hypotheses (apart from questionable interpretations -- and even denials -- of the available physical evidence) is that they posit explanations and motivations that are substantially more improbable than the standard hypotheses. For example, there's a conversation about Building 7, up above. Folks zero in on Building 7 as evidence that something nefarious happened on the part of American authorities -- but I've never seen any reasonable explanation for why the false-flag conspirators needed to destroy Building 7, whereas I've seen a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Building 7 collapsed after having large chunks of the neighboring tower fall on it, damage it severely, and set it on fire.

For example, there's a conversation about Building 7, up above. Folks zero in on Building 7 as evidence that something nefarious happened on the part of American authorities -- but I've never seen any reasonable explanation for why the false-flag conspirators needed to destroy Building 7, whereas I've seen a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Building 7 collapsed after having large chunks of the neighboring tower fall on it, damage it severely, and set it on fire.

In my own humble opinion at least, those who maintain that these crimes were planned actions of the US Government need to bring direct evidence of that claim, i.e., precisely who from the US Government arranged it, when, and how. Circumstantial crap just won't cut the mustard here.

1. Yes. "I dismiss them". There. Done.

2. Because global hegemony is their religion. Of course they drew up a plan for it. They would have acted on that plan, to whatever extent they could -- including endless propaganda -- even if 9/11 had never happened.

3. Because the Saudis are already under their hegemonic control, so lashing out at the Saudis over the actions of certain Saudi citizens would have been pointless to them. With respect to your own interpretation of events, and Question 3, I would ask you this: If 9/11 was a false flag operation carried out by evil genius masterminds capable of organizing and executing a rather extraordinary and far-reaching conspiracy, with the intent of justifying military action against Iraq and the Taliban and whomever else, why did they choose Saudi citizens to carry it out? Point 3 argues against the false flag hypothesis, not for it.

The general flaw in almost all of the false-flag hypotheses (apart from questionable interpretations -- and even denials -- of the available physical evidence) is that they posit explanations and motivations that are substantially more improbable than the standard hypotheses. For example, there's a conversation about Building 7, up above. Folks zero in on Building 7 as evidence that something nefarious happened on the part of American authorities -- but I've never seen any reasonable explanation for why the false-flag conspirators needed to destroy Building 7, whereas I've seen a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Building 7 collapsed after having large chunks of the neighboring tower fall on it, damage it severely, and set it on fire.

up

2 users have voted.

—

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

For example, there's a conversation about Building 7, up above. Folks zero in on Building 7 as evidence that something nefarious happened on the part of American authorities -- but I've never seen any reasonable explanation for why the false-flag conspirators needed to destroy Building 7, whereas I've seen a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Building 7 collapsed after having large chunks of the neighboring tower fall on it, damage it severely, and set it on fire.

In my own humble opinion at least, those who maintain that these crimes were planned actions of the US Government need to bring direct evidence of that claim, i.e., precisely who from the US Government arranged it, when, and how. Circumstantial crap just won't cut the mustard here.

I made it clear what was required. And it is required, will or nill either of us.

Direct evidence is required here. Names, times, places of the exact Americans (and their exact overt acts) who supposedly arranged this hideous crime. I say it is required will or nill either of us courtesy of the US Constitution, Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

And if this is a military operation, an act of war, then any and all Americans involved therewith are guilty of Treason. It isn't really my fault that the Constitution itself sets the evidentiary bar as high as it does. I must say I agree with it, though.

In my humble opinion at least, it is the single biggest flaw in the entire history of Western jurisprudence that circumstantial "evidence" is ever allowed to establish a conviction by itself. Western logic has always demanded direct evidence corroboration for acceptance of circumstantials; this should be applied everywhere. Consider all the innocent people this country incarcerates. Nearly all were convicted on circumstantial-only evidence.

All I'm guilty of here is demanding that same standard for the 9/11 crimes. And the Constitution apparently agrees with me.

My narrative of what happened on 9/11 is, and remains, that which can be constructed from facts directly evidenced and that only. That we were attacked by a gang of criminally fanatical Wahhabi Muslims from Saudi Arabia and Egypt is not in question; that has been well and thoroughly proven with direct evidence.

To get back to your question, Big Al, I'd like to see the same quality or better direct evidence for any supposed American involvement.

#6.1 Have you thoroughly compared the information, data, and testimonies from independent research vs. the government story supported by Bush, Cheney and now Trump?

up

1 user has voted.

—

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

@thanatokephaloides
we citizens should be demanding answers to the incredible amount of discrepancies and questions around the entire event from our government. It's incumbent on the government to prove it's case and it failed miserably while lying and making shit up repeatedly. Talk about circumstantial evidence. And it used that to launch illegal wars, a fascist police state and laws against our liberty.

Imo and a lot of others that have studied and researched this issue, the "circumstantial" evidence is so significant, taking into account the history of false flags, intelligence agency activities, the run up to 9/11 and the aftermath, it's impossible to not see deep state and intelligence agency involvement. And there is plenty of direct evidence that points to that involvement.

I made it clear what was required. And it is required, will or nill either of us.

Direct evidence is required here. Names, times, places of the exact Americans (and their exact overt acts) who supposedly arranged this hideous crime. I say it is required will or nill either of us courtesy of the US Constitution, Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

And if this is a military operation, an act of war, then any and all Americans involved therewith are guilty of Treason. It isn't really my fault that the Constitution itself sets the evidentiary bar as high as it does. I must say I agree with it, though.

In my humble opinion at least, it is the single biggest flaw in the entire history of Western jurisprudence that circumstantial "evidence" is ever allowed to establish a conviction by itself. Western logic has always demanded direct evidence corroboration for acceptance of circumstantials; this should be applied everywhere. Consider all the innocent people this country incarcerates. Nearly all were convicted on circumstantial-only evidence.

All I'm guilty of here is demanding that same standard for the 9/11 crimes. And the Constitution apparently agrees with me.

My narrative of what happened on 9/11 is, and remains, that which can be constructed from facts directly evidenced and that only. That we were attacked by a gang of criminally fanatical Wahhabi Muslims from Saudi Arabia and Egypt is not in question; that has been well and thoroughly proven with direct evidence.

To get back to your question, Big Al, I'd like to see the same quality or better direct evidence for any supposed American involvement.

@Big Al
within the realm of human experience for which i could not fairly trivially "discover" a non-stop stream of "discrepancies" that someone or other might become persuaded were in need of explanation. every single such purported discrepancy ever put forth to me by proponents of the false-flag hypothesis either:

a. represented no discrepancy at all, within my own understanding of events
or
b. might possibly represented a discrepancy, but any alternative explanation depended even more/worse discrepancies.

#6.1.1.1 we citizens should be demanding answers to the incredible amount of discrepancies and questions around the entire event from our government. It's incumbent on the government to prove it's case and it failed miserably while lying and making shit up repeatedly. Talk about circumstantial evidence. And it used that to launch illegal wars, a fascist police state and laws against our liberty.

Imo and a lot of others that have studied and researched this issue, the "circumstantial" evidence is so significant, taking into account the history of false flags, intelligence agency activities, the run up to 9/11 and the aftermath, it's impossible to not see deep state and intelligence agency involvement. And there is plenty of direct evidence that points to that involvement.

@UntimelyRippd
fine.
So have I and many others. In fact, most American citizens and the vast majority of world citizens don't believe the official story.
So we go on.

#6.1.1.1.1
within the realm of human experience for which i could not fairly trivially "discover" a non-stop stream of "discrepancies" that someone or other might become persuaded were in need of explanation. every single such purported discrepancy ever put forth to me by proponents of the false-flag hypothesis either:

a. represented no discrepancy at all, within my own understanding of events
or
b. might possibly represented a discrepancy, but any alternative explanation depended even more/worse discrepancies.

@Big Al
a. you haven't provided anything approximately like proof that the official narrative is false in any respect of consequence,
and
b. you haven't provided anything approximately like support, nevermind proof, that any element at all of your alternative narrative is true.

believe whatever you want to believe, but i'm afraid i'm normally constrained by a rather rigorous epistemology.

#6.1.1.1.1.1 fine.
So have I and many others. In fact, most American citizens and the vast majority of world citizens don't believe the official story.
So we go on.

@UntimelyRippd
Rampant paranoia becomes a survival mechanism, and everything becomes suspect. The most important question is, how does one stay sane in a society that is increasingly insane?

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1
a. you haven't provided anything approximately like proof that the official narrative is false in any respect of consequence,
and
b. you haven't provided anything approximately like support, nevermind proof, that any element at all of your alternative narrative is true.

believe whatever you want to believe, but i'm afraid i'm normally constrained by a rather rigorous epistemology.

@TheOtherMaven
my 401k money is all in money market, not because that's bulletproof (as some folks discovered to their surprise back in the Greatest Motherfucking Economic Crisis in American history), but because the financial markets themselves are so irrational that i simply cannot stand to be invested in them, even though i'd have made many thousands of dollars in the last 7 years had i just bought index funds.

we all have zones of cognition where our emotional investment completely overrides our ability to rationally process information. for most of us, most of the time, these zones are local and personal -- like, parents who refuse to admit that their kid is a bully, or has below-average intelligence, or whatever. when people develop such a zone with respect to some distant and complex set of events and institutions and individuals, epistemological hell breaks loose in the body politic.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Rampant paranoia becomes a survival mechanism, and everything becomes suspect. The most important question is, how does one stay sane in a society that is increasingly insane?

@UntimelyRippd
apply your rigorous epistemology to the government's 9-11 report. I don't know whet happened. I believe the 9-11 commission did a shoddy job. It appears that some of the people selected to participate were appointed to ensure it did a shoddy job.

If you'd care to amuse yourself you could dig up photos of molten steel at the bottom os the twin towers. Then you could look up the temperature it takes to make structural steel go molten and the temperature at which jet fuel burns. Don't forget to allow for the fact that quite a bit of jet fuel was blown outside the buildings during the initial moments of the crashes.

You seem to have one standard for the people who guaranteed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another for their critics. Sorry, but when one side has tens of millions of dollars and the power to subpoena and the other is relying on volunteers it's the former that bears the standard of proof you demand.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1
a. you haven't provided anything approximately like proof that the official narrative is false in any respect of consequence,
and
b. you haven't provided anything approximately like support, nevermind proof, that any element at all of your alternative narrative is true.

believe whatever you want to believe, but i'm afraid i'm normally constrained by a rather rigorous epistemology.

@FuturePassed
is a classic example of the sort of flummoxation that bedevils the minds of the false-flag advocates. many other materials were burning in those buildings -- indeed, the jet fuel itself was long gone by the time either tower fell. apart from which, what exactly do you mean by "melted"? do you mean, a big blob of what was once a beam, then became a puddle, until it hardened into a big disk? because, no, i haven't seen a picture of that. on the other hand, if what you mean is "steel that must have melted, because it's all warped and misshapen and twisted and stuff," well, here, read all about it. money quote:

"I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

the kind of reasoning i see at work amongst those who are certain that our own government orchestrated 9/11 is identical to that i see amongst climate change denialists, holocaust deniers, and all such obsessed with alternative narratives. one particular characteristic of that reasoning is a tendency to throw out mutually contradictory assertions of fact (or hypothesis), as if what matters is the aggregate weight of such assertions, rather than the coherency of the narrative they represent.

another characteristic is the tendency to latch onto a point of question and, in response to rebuttal, extend it into the realm of the absurd. originally, the "melted steel" argument was only about the buildings collapsing. when it was pointed out that the steel didn't have to actually melt for the buildings to collapse, the new argument became something about steel melting in the abstract -- yet as I have said, large puddles of melted steel were not, to my knowledge, abundant at Ground Zero.

yet another characteristic is the tendency to assert that certain things are "impossible", when they are quite possible indeed, but outside the experience or knowledge of the person making the assertion. this happens all the time, and not just in oddball conversations about whether a flag can ripple on the moon, in the absence of atmosphere. there's (sadly) nothing unusual about scientists asserting that something is impossible, simply because they've never heard of it happening and they haven't thought deeply before making the assertion.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
apply your rigorous epistemology to the government's 9-11 report. I don't know whet happened. I believe the 9-11 commission did a shoddy job. It appears that some of the people selected to participate were appointed to ensure it did a shoddy job.

If you'd care to amuse yourself you could dig up photos of molten steel at the bottom os the twin towers. Then you could look up the temperature it takes to make structural steel go molten and the temperature at which jet fuel burns. Don't forget to allow for the fact that quite a bit of jet fuel was blown outside the buildings during the initial moments of the crashes.

You seem to have one standard for the people who guaranteed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another for their critics. Sorry, but when one side has tens of millions of dollars and the power to subpoena and the other is relying on volunteers it's the former that bears the standard of proof you demand.

1. Can the similarities between 9/11 and plans drawn up by the US Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in 1962 under the code name "Operation Northwoods" be easily dismissed?

The US DoD and JCS wrote a detailed plan almost identical to the 9/11 attacks as early as 1962 called "Operation Northwoods" where the US proposed hijacking commercial airliners, committing terrorist attacks, and blaming Cuba to justify a US military intervention."

and you answered:

1. Yes. "I dismiss them". There. Done.

Indeed. The main difference in our answers is that I went into some detail as to why. To wit, the complete and total lack of direct evidence corroboration to this particular circumstantial. And a circumstantial is all that it is without such corroboration.

Big Al's Question 2:

2. Why did US policymakers draw up extensive plans to reassert US global hegemony - including regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen - without any conceivable pretext until 9/11 conveniently unfolded?

Your answer smacked the ball out of the park here too, UntimelyRippd:

2. Because global hegemony is their religion. Of course they drew up a plan for it. They would have acted on that plan, to whatever extent they could -- including endless propaganda -- even if 9/11 had never happened.

Question 3:

3. If primarily Saudi hijackers with Saudi money and Saudi organization perpetrated the attacks of 9/11, why has the United States waged war or threatened war with every nation in the Middle East except Saudi Arabia and its allies?

Your answer, excellent as always:

3. Because the Saudis are already under their hegemonic control, so lashing out at the Saudis over the actions of certain Saudi citizens would have been pointless to them. With respect to your own interpretation of events, and Question 3, I would ask you this: If 9/11 was a false flag operation carried out by evil genius masterminds capable of organizing and executing a rather extraordinary and far-reaching conspiracy, with the intent of justifying military action against Iraq and the Taliban and whomever else, why did they choose Saudi citizens to carry it out? Point 3 argues against the false flag hypothesis, not for it.

Again, smack-on. Especially with that annoying lack of direct evidence of American involvement in 9/11 at all.

Your comment contained another paragraph which I've already answered in another comment.

1. Yes. "I dismiss them". There. Done.

2. Because global hegemony is their religion. Of course they drew up a plan for it. They would have acted on that plan, to whatever extent they could -- including endless propaganda -- even if 9/11 had never happened.

3. Because the Saudis are already under their hegemonic control, so lashing out at the Saudis over the actions of certain Saudi citizens would have been pointless to them. With respect to your own interpretation of events, and Question 3, I would ask you this: If 9/11 was a false flag operation carried out by evil genius masterminds capable of organizing and executing a rather extraordinary and far-reaching conspiracy, with the intent of justifying military action against Iraq and the Taliban and whomever else, why did they choose Saudi citizens to carry it out? Point 3 argues against the false flag hypothesis, not for it.

The general flaw in almost all of the false-flag hypotheses (apart from questionable interpretations -- and even denials -- of the available physical evidence) is that they posit explanations and motivations that are substantially more improbable than the standard hypotheses. For example, there's a conversation about Building 7, up above. Folks zero in on Building 7 as evidence that something nefarious happened on the part of American authorities -- but I've never seen any reasonable explanation for why the false-flag conspirators needed to destroy Building 7, whereas I've seen a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Building 7 collapsed after having large chunks of the neighboring tower fall on it, damage it severely, and set it on fire.

up

4 users have voted.

—

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

@thanatokephaloides
what you are calling "direct evidence", i've been thinking of as "positive evidence". all i ever get from the false-flag claimants are examples of "negative evidence": "I think X doesn't match the official narrative. How do you explain X?" "I think Y doesn't match the official narrative. How do you explain Y"?
i rarely have any trouble constructing plausible explanations for X and Y, provided X and Y are valid premises, and i simultaneously never get anything resembling positive evidence for the alternative explanation -- i only get relatively implausible explanations with no supporting facts. the single most extraordinary example is the fascination people have with the premature reporting of Building 7 having come down. I simply do not understand how or why this is supposed to be evidence of anything other than an error in reporting during a rapidly evolving and brain-rattling crisis. I have never seen anyone even attempt to draw a causal line between "false-flag attack" and "someone on British TV erroneously reported that Building 7 had already fallen ... TWENTY MINUTES BEFORE IT ACTUALLY FELL!" They all just act like the chain of causation is obvious to anyone who hasn't had the wool pulled over their eyes. I mean ... like I said, it's usually trivial for me to provide sensible explanations for supposed discrepancies, but in this case, I can't construct even a silly explanation that supports the false-flag hypothesis.

1. Can the similarities between 9/11 and plans drawn up by the US Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in 1962 under the code name "Operation Northwoods" be easily dismissed?

The US DoD and JCS wrote a detailed plan almost identical to the 9/11 attacks as early as 1962 called "Operation Northwoods" where the US proposed hijacking commercial airliners, committing terrorist attacks, and blaming Cuba to justify a US military intervention."

and you answered:

1. Yes. "I dismiss them". There. Done.

Indeed. The main difference in our answers is that I went into some detail as to why. To wit, the complete and total lack of direct evidence corroboration to this particular circumstantial. And a circumstantial is all that it is without such corroboration.

Big Al's Question 2:

2. Why did US policymakers draw up extensive plans to reassert US global hegemony - including regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen - without any conceivable pretext until 9/11 conveniently unfolded?

Your answer smacked the ball out of the park here too, UntimelyRippd:

2. Because global hegemony is their religion. Of course they drew up a plan for it. They would have acted on that plan, to whatever extent they could -- including endless propaganda -- even if 9/11 had never happened.

Question 3:

3. If primarily Saudi hijackers with Saudi money and Saudi organization perpetrated the attacks of 9/11, why has the United States waged war or threatened war with every nation in the Middle East except Saudi Arabia and its allies?

Your answer, excellent as always:

3. Because the Saudis are already under their hegemonic control, so lashing out at the Saudis over the actions of certain Saudi citizens would have been pointless to them. With respect to your own interpretation of events, and Question 3, I would ask you this: If 9/11 was a false flag operation carried out by evil genius masterminds capable of organizing and executing a rather extraordinary and far-reaching conspiracy, with the intent of justifying military action against Iraq and the Taliban and whomever else, why did they choose Saudi citizens to carry it out? Point 3 argues against the false flag hypothesis, not for it.

Again, smack-on. Especially with that annoying lack of direct evidence of American involvement in 9/11 at all.

Your comment contained another paragraph which I've already answered in another comment.

And, much like yourself, I've yet to see anything which would directly and affirmatively support the claim that the US Government caused 9/11 as some sort of "false flag" event. As I pointed out earlier, circumstantials and suspicions won't cut it here. Those who want to present 9/11 conspiracy theories as some sort of "truth" need to cone up with the same caliber of evidence the Constitution demands for such: actual affirmative facts demonstrating exactly what overt acts were committed by which Americans and when to further this crime.

And, like it or not, the claim that the US Government was directly involved in the 9/11 incidents is a very extraordinary claim indeed, and requires extraordinary direct affirmative evidence.

#6.2
what you are calling "direct evidence", i've been thinking of as "positive evidence". all i ever get from the false-flag claimants are examples of "negative evidence": "I think X doesn't match the official narrative. How do you explain X?" "I think Y doesn't match the official narrative. How do you explain Y"?
i rarely have any trouble constructing plausible explanations for X and Y, provided X and Y are valid premises, and i simultaneously never get anything resembling positive evidence for the alternative explanation -- i only get relatively implausible explanations with no supporting facts. the single most extraordinary example is the fascination people have with the premature reporting of Building 7 having come down. I simply do not understand how or why this is supposed to be evidence of anything other than an error in reporting during a rapidly evolving and brain-rattling crisis. I have never seen anyone even attempt to draw a causal line between "false-flag attack" and "someone on British TV erroneously reported that Building 7 had already fallen ... TWENTY MINUTES BEFORE IT ACTUALLY FELL!" They all just act like the chain of causation is obvious to anyone who hasn't had the wool pulled over their eyes. I mean ... like I said, it's usually trivial for me to provide sensible explanations for supposed discrepancies, but in this case, I can't construct even a silly explanation that supports the false-flag hypothesis.

up

1 user has voted.

—

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

@thanatokephaloides
That the government was involved somehow, or rather those controlling the government, would somehow be involved would be "extraordinary".
Do you have any idea what our government does and has done, the lies it tells, who is controlling it? It doesn't appear so.
Like I said before, the extraordinary claims are coming from our government, which you evidently fully believe.

And, much like yourself, I've yet to see anything which would directly and affirmatively support the claim that the US Government caused 9/11 as some sort of "false flag" event. As I pointed out earlier, circumstantials and suspicions won't cut it here. Those who want to present 9/11 conspiracy theories as some sort of "truth" need to cone up with the same caliber of evidence the Constitution demands for such: actual affirmative facts demonstrating exactly what overt acts were committed by which Americans and when to further this crime.

@Big Al
because the alternative is that it is/was chock-full of an appalling degree of incompetence, so great that they couldn't organize a sing-along in a nursery school.

That level of incompetence is, and should be, a lot scarier.

#6.2.1.1 That the government was involved somehow, or rather those controlling the government, would somehow be involved would be "extraordinary".
Do you have any idea what our government does and has done, the lies it tells, who is controlling it? It doesn't appear so.
Like I said before, the extraordinary claims are coming from our government, which you evidently fully believe.

Isn't there a hell of a lot of evidence of planned and enacted criminality within the US government already, which has accumulated over numerous years? Even international law has been broken in the most appalling and disgusting fashion. 'Incompetence' cannot cover 'legalized' kidnapping and torture at home and abroad, as one example. Or the 'legalization' of governmental propagandizing of its own citizens, as another.

#6.2.1.1.1
because the alternative is that it is/was chock-full of an appalling degree of incompetence, so great that they couldn't organize a sing-along in a nursery school.

That level of incompetence is, and should be, a lot scarier.

up

2 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

@Ellen North
because it's not necessarily an either-or choice - could be incompetence and malevolence coexisting (maybe even cooperating). But considering that even the people who think they "know" the "truth" about 9/11 are usually wrong on some of the details (including getting Cheney's and Shrub's actions completely backward), I remain skeptical. Of all sides.

Isn't there a hell of a lot of evidence of planned and enacted criminality within the US government already, which has accumulated over numerous years? Even international law has been broken in the most appalling and disgusting fashion. 'Incompetence' cannot cover 'legalized' kidnapping and torture at home and abroad, as one example. Or the 'legalization' of governmental propagandizing of its own citizens, as another.

But we do already know that evil is involved, whether excused or masquerading as incompetence, such as The Most Experienced And Competent Presidential Candidate Ever Hillary claiming that as Secretary of State, Her was completely unable to understand or follow basic national security protocols integral to Her job, while benefiting enormously from her inability to understand that taking large amounts of money from those Her caused the State Department to facilitate wasn't going to look good.

Some of this might be simple incompetence, but too much outright evil - including 'legalizing' kidnapping, torture and internationally illegal attacks on other people's countries to steal their resources, while 'legalizing' governmental propaganda against their own people to cover up such as this by disinformation campaigns in a captured-via-Presidential-deregulation media market - simply cannot be covered with that claim...

The American people have a right to the full results of honest, openly and independently conducted and thorough investigations into all suspect areas of their governance.

It's their country and public service, after all.

#6.2.1.1.1.1.1
because it's not necessarily an either-or choice - could be incompetence and malevolence coexisting (maybe even cooperating). But considering that even the people who think they "know" the "truth" about 9/11 are usually wrong on some of the details (including getting Cheney's and Shrub's actions completely backward), I remain skeptical. Of all sides.

up

2 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

This is getting into rather deep waters because it's not necessarily an either-or choice - could be incompetence and malevolence coexisting (maybe even cooperating). But considering that even the people who think they "know" the "truth" about 9/11 are usually wrong on some of the details (including getting Cheney's and Shrub's actions completely backward), I remain skeptical. Of all sides.

This is my attitude as well.

It's been assumed -- wrongly -- that I just buy into the government narrative because I won't give any credence to the conspiracy theories without any direct affirmative evidence to support them. As I've already stated, circumstantials and suspicions won't suffice here.

But I am no more willing to buy the government's version of events supported only by circumstantials and suspicions, either.

And the supply of raw direct affirmative evidence, available to ordinary Americans not in some abusable position of authority, in any direction, doesn't exist. Or at least not that I've ever been able to find. Everything available to us ordinary folks is hopelessly polluted with somebody's self-interest, and well spun.

So, your attitude of being skeptical of all published narratives is well justified. And I thank you for pointing that fact out for us.

#6.2.1.1.1.1.1
because it's not necessarily an either-or choice - could be incompetence and malevolence coexisting (maybe even cooperating). But considering that even the people who think they "know" the "truth" about 9/11 are usually wrong on some of the details (including getting Cheney's and Shrub's actions completely backward), I remain skeptical. Of all sides.

up

1 user has voted.

—

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

what about CUI BONO? An awful lot of loot has been expended on wars and research and development and a new anthrax research lab and homeland fascism that would not otherwise have been spent. PNAC off the edge of the world as to expenditures, secrecy, and power. Does any of this constitute evidence of complicit motivation and direct involvement, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other horse's asses involved in the industrial entities that benefit? Just happenstance?

This is getting into rather deep waters because it's not necessarily an either-or choice - could be incompetence and malevolence coexisting (maybe even cooperating). But considering that even the people who think they "know" the "truth" about 9/11 are usually wrong on some of the details (including getting Cheney's and Shrub's actions completely backward), I remain skeptical. Of all sides.

This is my attitude as well.

It's been assumed -- wrongly -- that I just buy into the government narrative because I won't give any credence to the conspiracy theories without any direct affirmative evidence to support them. As I've already stated, circumstantials and suspicions won't suffice here.

But I am no more willing to buy the government's version of events supported only by circumstantials and suspicions, either.

And the supply of raw direct affirmative evidence, available to ordinary Americans not in some abusable position of authority, in any direction, doesn't exist. Or at least not that I've ever been able to find. Everything available to us ordinary folks is hopelessly polluted with somebody's self-interest, and well spun.

So, your attitude of being skeptical of all published narratives is well justified. And I thank you for pointing that fact out for us.

Still circumstantial -- and therefore still worthless for the purpose without the direct evidence I called for.

An awful lot of loot has been expended on wars and research and development and a new anthrax research lab and homeland fascism that would not otherwise have been spent. PNAC off the edge of the world as to expenditures, secrecy, and power. Does any of this constitute evidence of complicit motivation and direct involvement, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other horse's asses involved in the industrial entities that benefit? Just happenstance?

Not just happenstance, but still not evidence of the proposal that the 9/11 attacks were a US Government plan, either. Only direct affirmative evidence will do here.

No one has ever provided the evidence directly connecting the two.

This does not mean the government's version of events isn't crap, by the way. That both narratives are festering sacks of liquid crap is quite possible; and, in fact, most likely. As I pointed out to Big Al, that's really where my orientation lies. I don't think that any 9/11 narrative available to us Serfs falls within a Texas country mile of what really happened there.

Nor do I expect to live to see the appropriate facts made available to us. We still don't have the whole picture regarding the 1%er actors in the Pearl Harbor attacks. And I don't expect that information to ever be available to me, either; I fully expect to die of old age first.

what about CUI BONO? An awful lot of loot has been expended on wars and research and development and a new anthrax research lab and homeland fascism that would not otherwise have been spent. PNAC off the edge of the world as to expenditures, secrecy, and power. Does any of this constitute evidence of complicit motivation and direct involvement, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other horse's asses involved in the industrial entities that benefit? Just happenstance?

up

1 user has voted.

—

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

I'm the one who called them horse's asses. But that doesn't mean, from my point of view, that they're incompetent.

They're the most powerful people on earth. The PNAC and the Council of Foreign Relations and the list of other acronymic associations are running our domestic and foreign policies, and what they do benefits themselves and their client potentates. They do harm on a scale that only gets worse, and worse.

In a spirit of exasperation that resembles what Big Al has said to you, I want to say, what would it take to make you acknowledge that they're responsible for what happened? What resources do we not provide, including a black budget with no limitations, to prevent it from happening? When Don and Dov announce on the day before that they've lost track of $2 trillion in DEFENSE spending, are we meant to feel sorry for them? Are we supposed to feel guilty for spending too much money for them to handle effectively?

No! My answer to that question is that they are guilty, knowingly, connected to the policy and private industry ends of the spectrum of planning and plundering that define this event, from providing WMD precursors to rogue governments to owning a company that pillages the American taxpayer by inventing systems to remotely control passenger airline flight. Don Rumsfeld and Dov Zakheim are, like Bush, Cheney, and the Saudi royals, industry figures running our government for their purposes, openly.

They're not stupid, they're not incompetent, they're selected and recruited to be on boards of directors of key player industries, and they are very open about it. They have worked very hard to explain their position in support of the value of such an attack on the United States in the PNAC documents. They ADVOCATED this attack as an essential to their belief that they, not the world's people, should enjoy the fruits of the labor of the world's people. They have explained why this was necessary from their perspective. They expect you to understand it.

Still circumstantial -- and therefore still worthless for the purpose without the direct evidence I called for.

An awful lot of loot has been expended on wars and research and development and a new anthrax research lab and homeland fascism that would not otherwise have been spent. PNAC off the edge of the world as to expenditures, secrecy, and power. Does any of this constitute evidence of complicit motivation and direct involvement, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other horse's asses involved in the industrial entities that benefit? Just happenstance?

Not just happenstance, but still not evidence of the proposal that the 9/11 attacks were a US Government plan, either. Only direct affirmative evidence will do here.

No one has ever provided the evidence directly connecting the two.

This does not mean the government's version of events isn't crap, by the way. That both narratives are festering sacks of liquid crap is quite possible; and, in fact, most likely. As I pointed out to Big Al, that's really where my orientation lies. I don't think that any 9/11 narrative available to us Serfs falls within a Texas country mile of what really happened there.

Nor do I expect to live to see the appropriate facts made available to us. We still don't have the whole picture regarding the 1%er actors in the Pearl Harbor attacks. And I don't expect that information to ever be available to me, either; I fully expect to die of old age first.

It's comforting to believe the Govt is evil and criminal
because the alternative is that it is/was chock-full of an appalling degree of incompetence, so great that they couldn't organize a sing-along in a nursery school.

That level of incompetence is, and should be, a lot scarier.

Especially since direct affirmative evidence abounds for the latter case, as it did in 2001.

For 2001, Exhibit A is George W. Bush (of course).

Today, it is the holder of the same position: Donald J. "Chump" Trump, whose fame includes business bankruptcy. Of a casino.

In addition, today, we have the ilk of Louie Gohmert, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne "I can have a gun but you can't" Feinstein, etc.

And directly addressing the "appalling degree of incompetence, so great that they couldn't organize a sing-along in a nursery school", I present the performance record of the Congress itself. Q.E.D. !!

#6.2.1.1.1
because the alternative is that it is/was chock-full of an appalling degree of incompetence, so great that they couldn't organize a sing-along in a nursery school.

That level of incompetence is, and should be, a lot scarier.

up

1 user has voted.

—

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

Yet it seems that these incompetents are enacting the wishes of their corporate/billionaire paymasters, which somehow seems to work out to their benefit, which leads me to suspect that the incompetence is conditional upon the PTB et al benefiting from the adverse circumstances inflicted upon others.

It's comforting to believe the Govt is evil and criminal
because the alternative is that it is/was chock-full of an appalling degree of incompetence, so great that they couldn't organize a sing-along in a nursery school.

That level of incompetence is, and should be, a lot scarier.

Especially since direct affirmative evidence abounds for the latter case, as it did in 2001.

For 2001, Exhibit A is George W. Bush (of course).

Today, it is the holder of the same position: Donald J. "Chump" Trump, whose fame includes business bankruptcy. Of a casino.

In addition, today, we have the ilk of Louie Gohmert, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne "I can have a gun but you can't" Feinstein, etc.

And directly addressing the "appalling degree of incompetence, so great that they couldn't organize a sing-along in a nursery school", I present the performance record of the Congress itself. Q.E.D. !!

up

3 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Yet it seems that these incompetents are enacting the wishes of their corporate/billionaire paymasters, which somehow seems to work out to their benefit, which leads me to suspect that the incompetence is conditional upon the PTB et al benefiting from the adverse circumstances inflicted upon others.

The government’s possible suppression of evidence of Saudi support for the 19 hijackers would go beyond passive cover-up. Is the government releasing false information, while continuing to classify documents containing the truth? As the presidential campaign is proving, appearances of government deception have contributed to wary Americans becoming more and more outraged with their elected officials.

Is that not evidence in itself that something is wrong with the official story? After all, if the official story is so true, what need is there to cover anything up?

Or does you rather fanciful understanding (based on a mangled Carl Sagan quote) of what constitutes legitimate evidence allow you to ignore whatever doesn't fit your preconceived narrative.

Moreover, if the government is indeed suppressing evidence (likely) how can you be so quick to dismiss alternative narratives. Maybe you simply haven't found the evidence you claim you need because you haven't been allowed to see it.

And, much like yourself, I've yet to see anything which would directly and affirmatively support the claim that the US Government caused 9/11 as some sort of "false flag" event. As I pointed out earlier, circumstantials and suspicions won't cut it here. Those who want to present 9/11 conspiracy theories as some sort of "truth" need to cone up with the same caliber of evidence the Constitution demands for such: actual affirmative facts demonstrating exactly what overt acts were committed by which Americans and when to further this crime.

@Not Henry Kissinger
The question is, are they covering up a Nefarious Evil Plan, or the egregious extent of their shockingly abysmal incompetence? (When dealing with government, any government, incompetence is totally to be expected. Extreme incompetence, however, is not quite so usual.)

The government’s possible suppression of evidence of Saudi support for the 19 hijackers would go beyond passive cover-up. Is the government releasing false information, while continuing to classify documents containing the truth? As the presidential campaign is proving, appearances of government deception have contributed to wary Americans becoming more and more outraged with their elected officials.

Is that not evidence in itself that something is wrong with the official story? After all, if the official story is so true, what need is there to cover anything up?

Or does you rather fanciful understanding (based on a mangled Carl Sagan quote) of what constitutes legitimate evidence allow you to ignore whatever doesn't fit your preconceived narrative.

Moreover, if the government is indeed suppressing evidence (likely) how can you be so quick to dismiss alternative narratives. Maybe you simply haven't found the evidence you claim you need because you haven't been allowed to see it.

the Feds are covering up proof of Saudi state complicity, not incompetence.

#6.2.1.1.2
The question is, are they covering up a Nefarious Evil Plan, or the egregious extent of their shockingly abysmal incompetence? (When dealing with government, any government, incompetence is totally to be expected. Extreme incompetence, however, is not quite so usual.)

General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years

Published on 11 Sep 2011

Originally published in March 2007
General Wesley Clark:
Because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"

Dick Cheney Only Had to Delay Things a COUPLE OF MINUTES to Reach his Long-Sought Goals

By
Staff -
June 17, 2009

Washingtonsblog.com

CIA director Leon Panetta told the New Yorker :

When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point.

News commentator Ed Schultz said today that Cheney is wishing for a terrorist attack on the U.S.

What should we make of all this?
Well, everyone knows that Cheney is ruthless:

Cheney is the guy who pushed for torture, pressured the Justice Department lawyers to write memos saying torture was legal, and made the pitch to Congress justifying torture. The former director of the CIA accused Cheney of overseeing American torture policies

Cheney is also the guy who :

Helped found the Project for a New American Century, which called for a new American empire well before 9/11, and lamented that, without a “catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”, transformation of America into an empire would be very slow.

In the ’70s — Cheney was instrumental in generating fake intelligence exaggerating the Soviet threat in order to undermine coexistence between the U.S. and Soviet Union, which conveniently justified huge amounts of cold war spending . See also this article .
30 years later, Cheney was largely responsible for generating fake intelligence about Iraq in order to justify the war. And, according to former British Defense Secretary, Cheney has called the shots in the failed Iraq war .

According to former high-level intelligence officer Melvin Goodman, Cheney orchestrated phony intelligence for the Congress in order to get an endorsement for covert arms shipments to anti-government forces in Angola

Cheney has been perhaps the leading advocate for strengthening the powers of the White House to the point of monarchy for at least 20 years

Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh says that the military ran an “Executive Assassination Ring” throughout the Bush years which reported directly to Cheney.

Hersh also says that Cheney is the main guy helping to fund groups which the U.S. claims are terrorists (see confirming articles here and here )

Blast from the Past

Photo of Dick CheneyOkay, Cheney is a bad apple. But that’s not all.

Remember that Cheney falsely claimed that there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq, but has recently admitted there was never any evidence to back up such a claim.

Remember also that the torture program which Cheney created was specifically aimed at producing false confessions in an attempt to link Iraq and 9/11 .

A well-known writer said of Dick Cheney:

For his entire career, he sought untrammeled power. The Bush presidency and 9/11 finally gave it to him . . . .

Indeed, as I’ve previously pointed out :

The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11

The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11

The Patriot Act was written before 9/11

The government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here )

The Neocons who now run the U.S. government lamented, before 9/11 , that they could not in stitute their plans for global domination without a “new Pearl Harbor”

So Cheney had a lot of motivation to “accidentally” let 9/11 happen.

Cheney also knew 9/11 was going to happen. The government knew that terrorists could use planes as weapons — and had even run its own drills of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, using REAL airplanes — all before 9/11 . Indeed, the government heard the 9/11 plans from the hijackers’ own mouths before 9/11 .

Indeed, Cheney was in charge of all counter-terrorism exercises, activities and responses on 9/11 (see this Department of State announcement ; this CNN article ; and this essay ). So he was in a perfect position to “accidentally” let it happen.
He Only Had to Wait a Couple of Minutes
Before you say “that’s a crazy conspiracy theory”, please note that Cheney would have only had to delay normal military response a couple of minutes to let the 9/11 attacks succeed.

Specifically, the Secretary of Transportation testified to the 9/11 Commission:

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President … the plane is 50 miles out … the plane is 30 miles out … and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?” ...

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened”. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”

Indeed, they said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access… .”

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal” ; “This investigation is now compromised” ; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”

See related articles: ...

The above is old, as are the sources linked, and between 'page not found' and my lousy searches... but:

(Click Here for Part 2)
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Government Heard 9/11 Plans from Hijackers' Own Mouths

Many essays have discussed the U.S. government's foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, the number of facts pointing towards likely foreknowledge are so numerous that it is easy to get lost in the details.

This essay focuses solely on the proof that American and allied intelligence services actually heard the hijackers discuss and make their plans before 9/11.

Initially, an FBI informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000.

And a CIA agent allegedly met with Bin Laden in an American hospital in July 2001

Furthermore, Israel tracked the hijackers' every move prior to the attacks, and sent agents to film the attack on the World Trade Centers.

Moreover, the intelligence services of the French and other governments had infiltrated the highest levels of Al-Qaeda's camps, and actually listened to the hijackers' debates about which airlines' planes should be hijacked, and allied intelligence services also intercepted phone conversations between Al-Qaeda members regarding the attacks.

And the National Security Agency and the FBI were each independently listening in on the phone calls between the supposed mastermind of the attacks and the lead hijacker. Indeed, the FBI built its own antenna in Madagascar specifically to listen in on the mastermind's phone calls. The day before 9/11, the mastermind told the lead hijacker "tomorrow is zero hour" and gave final approval for the attacks. The NSA intercepted the message that day and the FBI was likely also monitoring the mastermind's phone calls.

Shortly before 9/11, the NSA also intercepted multiple phone calls to the United States from Bin Laden's chief of operations.

The CIA and the NSA had been intercepting phone calls by the hijackers for years (see also this). ...

The link to '... Furthermore, Israel tracked the hijackers' every move prior to the attacks, and sent agents to film the attack on the World Trade Centers. ... gave me 'page not found', but this ginonmous, detailed article is well worth the read in full, at source, if feasible:

03/07/07 "Counterpunch" -- -- On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, an FBI bulletin known as a BOLO ­- "be on lookout" -- was issued with regard to three suspicious men who that morning were seen leaving the New Jersey waterfront minutes after the first plane hit World Trade Center 1. Law enforcement officers across the New York-New Jersey area were warned in the radio dispatch to watch for a "vehicle possibly related to New York terrorist attack":

White, 2000 Chevrolet van with 'Urban Moving Systems' sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals.

At 3:56 p.m., twenty-five minutes after the issuance of the FBI BOLO, officers with the East Rutherford Police Department stopped the commercial moving van through a trace on the plates. According to the police report, Officer Scott DeCarlo and Sgt. Dennis Rivelli approached the stopped van, demanding that the driver exit the vehicle. The driver, 23-year-old Sivan Kurzberg, refused and "was asked several more times [but] appeared to be fumbling with a black leather fanny pouch type of bag". With guns drawn, the police then "physically removed" Kurzberg, while four other men ­- two more men had apparently joined the group since the morning ­- were also removed from the van, handcuffed, placed on the grass median and read their Miranda rights.

They had not been told the reasons for their arrest. Yet, according to DeCarlo's report, "this officer was told without question by the driver [Sivan Kurzberg],'We are Israeli. We are not your problem.Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.'" Another of the five Israelis, again without prompting, told Officer DeCarlo ­- falsely ­- that "we were on the West Side Highway in New York City during the incident". From inside the vehicle the officers, who were quickly joined by agents from the FBI, retrieved multiple passports and $4,700 in cash stuffed in a sock. According to New Jersey's Bergen Record, which on September 12 reported the arrest of the five Israelis, an investigator high up in the Bergen County law enforcement hierarchy stated that officers had also discovered in the vehicle "maps of the city with certain places highlighted. It looked like they're hooked in with this", the source told the Record, referring to the 9/11 attacks. "It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park." ...

... The Israeli "Art Student" Spies

There is a second piece of evidence that suggests Israeli operatives were spying on al-Qaeda in the United States. It is writ in the peculiar tale of the Israeli "art students", detailed by this reporter for Salon.com in 2002, following the leaking of an internal memo circulated by the Drug Enforcement Administration's Office of Security Programs. The June 2001 memo, issued three months before the 9/11 attacks, reported that more than 120 young Israeli citizens, posing as art students and peddling cheap paintings, had been repeatedly ­- and seemingly inexplicably -­ attempting to penetrate DEA offices and other law enforcement and Defense Department offices across the country. The DEA report stated that the Israelis may have been engaged in "an organized intelligence gathering activity", but to what end, U.S. investigators, in June 2001, could not determine. The memo briefly floated the possibility that the Israelis were engaged in trafficking the drug ecstasy. According to the memo, "the most activity [was] reported in the state of Florida" during the first half of 2001, where the town of Hollywood appeared to be "a central point for these individuals with several having addresses in this area".

In retrospect, the fact that a large number of "art students" operated out of Hollywood is intriguing, to say the least. During 2001, the city, just north of Miami, was a hotbed of al-Qaeda activity and served as one of the chief staging grounds for the hijacking of the World Trade Center planes and the Pennsylvania plane; it was home to fifteen of the nineteen future hijackers, nine in Hollywood and six in the surrounding area. Among the 120 suspected Israeli spies posing as art students, more than thirty lived in the Hollywood area, ten in Hollywood proper. As noted in the DEA report, many of these young men and women had training as intelligence and electronic intercept officers in the Israeli military -­ training and experience far beyond the compulsory service mandated by Israeli law. Their "traveling in the U.S. selling art seem[ed] not to fit their background", according to the DEA report.

One "art student" was a former Israeli military intelligence officer named Hanan Serfaty, who rented two Hollywood apartments close to the mail drop and apartment of Mohammed Atta and four other hijackers. Serfaty was moving large amounts of cash: he carried bank slips showing more than $100,000 deposited from December 2000 through the first quarter of 2001; other bank slips showed withdrawals for about $80,000 during the same period. Serfaty's apartments, serving as crash pads for at least two other "art students", were located at 4220 Sheridan Street and 701 South 21st Avenue. Lead hijacker Mohammed Atta's mail drop was at 3389 Sheridan Street--approximately 2,700 feet from Serfaty's Sheridan Street apartment. Both Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, the suicide pilot on United Airlines Flight 175, which smashed into World Trade Center 2, lived in a rented apartment at 1818 Jackson Street, some 1,800 feet from Serfaty's South 21st Avenue apartment.

In fact, an improbable series of coincidences emerges from a close reading of the 2001 DEA memo, the 9/11 Commission's staff statements and final report, FBI and Justice Department watch lists, hijacker timelines compiled by major media and statements by local, state and federal law enforcement personnel. In at least six urban centers, suspected Israeli spies and 9/11 hijackers and/or al-Qaeda­connected suspects lived and operated near one another, in some cases less than half a mile apart, for various periods during 2000­01 in the run-up to the attacks. In addition to northern New Jersey and Hollywood, Florida, these centers included Arlington and Fredericksburg, Virginia; Atlanta; Oklahoma City; Los Angeles; and San Diego.

Israeli "art students" also lived close to terror suspects in and around Dallas, Texas. A 25-year-old "art student" named Michael Calmanovic, arrested and questioned by Texas-based DEA officers in April 2001, maintained a mail drop at 3575 North Beltline Road, less than a thousand feet from the 4045 North Beltline Road apartment of Ahmed Khalefa, an FBI terror suspect. Dallas and its environs, especially the town of Richardson, Texas, throbbed with "art student" activity. Richardson is notable as the home of the Holy Land Foundation, an Islamic charity designated as a terrorist funder by the European Union and U.S. government in December 2001. Sources in 2002 told The Forward, in a report unrelated to the question of the "art students", that "Israeli intelligence played a key role in helping the Bush administration to crack down on Islamic charities suspected of funneling money to terrorist groups, most notably the Richardson, Texas-based Holy Land Foundation, last December [2001]". It's plausible that the intelligence prompting the shutdown of the Holy Land Foundation came from "art student" spies in the Richardson area.

Others among the "art students" had specific backgrounds in electronic surveillance or military intelligence, or were associated with Israeli wiretapping and surveillance firms, which prompted further concerns among U.S. investigators. DEA agents described Michael Calmanovic, for example, as "a recently discharged electronic intercept operator for the Israeli military". Lior Baram, questioned near Hollywood, Fla., in January 2001, said he had served two years in Israeli intelligence "working with classified information". Hanan Serfaty, who maintained the Hollywood apartments near Atta and his cohorts, served in the Israeli military between the ages of 18 and 21. Serfaty refused to disclose his activities between the ages of 21 and 24, including his activities since arriving in the U.S.A. in 2000. The French daily Le Monde meanwhile reported that six "art students" were apparently using cell phones that had been purchased by a former Israeli vice consul in the U.S.A.

Suspected Israeli spy Tomer Ben Dor, questioned at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport in May 2001, worked for the Israeli wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping company NICE Systems Ltd. (NICE Systems' American subsidiary, NICE Systems Inc., is located in Rutherford, New Jersey, not far from the East Rutherford site where the five Israeli "movers" were arrested on the afternoon of September 11.) Ben Dor carried in his luggage a print-out of a computer file that referred to "DEA Groups". How he acquired information about so-called "DEA Groups" ­- via, for example, his own employment with an Israeli wiretapping company -­ was never determined, according to DEA documents.

"Art student" Michal Gal, arrested by DEA investigators in Irving, Texas, in the spring of 2001, was released on a $10,000 cash bond posted by Ophir Baer, an employee of the Israeli telecommunications software company Amdocs Inc., which provides phone-billing technology to clients that include some of the largest phone companies in the United States as well as U.S. government agencies. Amdocs, whose executive board has been heavily stocked with retired and current members of the Israeli government and military, has been investigated at least twice in the last decade by U.S. authorities on charges of espionage-related leaks of data that the company assured was secure. (The company strenuously denies any wrong-doing.)

According to the former CIA counterterrorism officer with knowledge of investigations into 9/11-related Israeli espionage, when law enforcement officials examined the "art students" phenomenon, they came to the tentative conclusion that "the Israelis likely had a huge spy operation in the U.S. and that they had succeeded in identifying a number of the hijackers". The German daily Die Zeit reached the same conclusion in 2002, reporting that "Mossad agents in the U.S. were in all probability surveilling at least four of the 19 hijackers". The Fox News Channel also reported that U.S. investigators suspected that Israelis were spying on Muslim militants in the United States. "There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9/11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it", Fox correspondent Carl Cameron reported in a December 2001 series that was the first major exposé of allegations of 9/11-related Israeli espionage. "A highly placed investigator said there are 'tie-ins'. But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, 'evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.'"

One element of the allegations has never been clearly understood: if the "art students" were indeed spies targeting Muslim extremists that included al-Qaeda, why would they also be surveilling DEA agents in such a compromising manner? Why, in other words, would foreign spies bumble into federal offices by the scores and risk exposing their operation? An explanation is that a number of the art students were, in fact, young Israelis engaged in a mere art scam and unknowingly provided cover for real spies. Investigative journalist John Sugg, who as senior editor for the Creative Loafing newspaper chain reported on the "art students" in 2002, told me that investigators he spoke to within FBI felt the "art student" ring functioned as a wide-ranging cover that was counterintuitive in its obviousness. DEA investigators, for example, uncovered evidence connecting the Israeli "art students" to known ecstasy trafficking operations in New York and Florida. This was, according to Sugg, planted information. "The explanation was that when our FBI guys started getting interested in these folks [the art students] ­- when they got too close to what the real purpose was ­- the Israelis threw in an ecstasy angle", Sugg told me. "The argument being that if our guys thought the Israelis were involved in a smuggling ring, then they wouldn't see the real purpose of the operation". Sugg, who is writing a book that explores the tale of the "art students", told me that several sources within the FBI, and at least one source formerly with Israeli intelligence, suggested that "the bumbling aspect of the art student thing was intentional."

When I reported on the matter for Salon.com in 2002, a veteran U.S. intelligence operative with experience subcontracting both for the CIA and the NSA suggested a similar possibility. "It was a noisy operation", the veteran intelligence operative said. The operative referred me to the film Victor, Victoria. "It was about a woman playing a man playing a woman. Perhaps you should think about this from that aspect and ask yourself if you wanted to have something that was in your face, that didn't make sense, that couldn't possibly be them". The intelligence operative added, "Think of it this way: how could the experts think this could actually be something of any value? Wouldn't they dismiss what they were seeing?" U.S. and Israeli officials, dismissing charges of espionage as an "urban myth", have publicly claimed that the Israeli "art students" were guilty only of working on U.S. soil without proper credentials. The stern denials issued by the Justice Department were widely publicized in the Washington Post and elsewhere, and the endnote from officialdom and in establishment media by the spring of 2002 was that the "art students" had been rounded up and deported simply because of harmless visa violations. The FBI, for its part, refused to confirm or deny the "art students" espionage story. "Regarding FBI investigations into Israeli art students", spokesman Jim Margolin told me, "the FBI cannot comment on any of those investigations." As with the New Jersey Israelis, the investigation into the Israeli "art students" appears to have been halted by orders from on high. The veteran CIA/NSA intelligence operative told me in 2002 that there was "a great press to discredit the story, discredit the connections, prevent [investigators] from going any further. People were told to stand down. You name the agency, they were told to stand down". The operative added, "People who were perceived to be gumshoes on [this matter] suddenly found themselves hammered from all different directions. The interest from the middle bureaucracy was not that there had been a security breach but that someone had bothered to investigate the breach. That was where the terror was".

Choking off the press coverage

There was similar pressure brought against the media venues that ventured to report out the allegations of 9/11- related Israeli espionage. A former ABC News employee high up in the network newsroom told me that when ABC News ran its June 2002 exposé on the celebratory New Jersey Israelis, "Enormous pressure was brought to bear by pro-Israeli organizations"--and this pressure began months before the piece was even close to airing. The source said that ABC News colleagues wondered, "how they [the pro-Israel organizations] found out we were doing the story. Pro- Israeli people were calling the president of ABC News. Barbara Walters was getting bombarded by calls. The story was a hard sell but ABC News came through the management insulated [reporters] from the pressure".

The experience of Carl Cameron, chief Washington correspondent at Fox News Channel and the first mainstream U.S. reporter to present the allegations of Israeli surveillance of the 9/11 hijackers, was perhaps more typical, both in its particulars and aftermath. The attack against Cameron and Fox News was spearheaded by a pro-Israel lobby group called the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), which operated in tandem with the two most highly visible powerhouse Israel lobbyists, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (itself currently embroiled in a spy scandal connected to the Defense Department and Israeli Embassy). "CAMERA pep- pered the shit out of us", Carl Cameron told me in 2002, referring to an e-mail bombardment that eventually crashed the Fox News.com servers. Cameron himself received 700 pages of almost identical e-mail messages from hundreds of citizens (though he suspected these were spam identities). CAMERA spokesman Alex Safian later told me that Cameron's upbringing in Iran, where his father traveled as an archeologist, had rendered the reporter "very sympathetic to the Arab side". Safian added, "I think Cameron, personally, has a thing about Israel"--coded language implying that Cameron was an anti-Semite. Cameron was outraged at the accusation.

According to a source at Fox News Channel, the president of the ADL, Abraham Foxman, telephoned executives at Fox News' parent, News Corp., to demand a sit-down in the wake of the Cameron reportage. The source said that Foxman told the News Corp. executives, "Look, you guys have generally been pretty fair to Israel. What are you doing putting this stuff out there? You're killing us". The Fox News source continued, "As good old boys will do over coffee in Manhattan, it was like, well, what can we do about this? Finally, Fox News said, 'Stop the e-mailing. Stop slamming us. Stop being in our face, and we'll stop being in your face--by way of taking our story down off the web. We will not retract it; we will not disavow it; we stand by it. But we will at least take it off the web.'" Following this meeting, within four days of the posting of Cameron's series on Fox News.com, the transcripts disappeared, replaced by the message, "This story no longer exists".

What did Mossad know and tell the U.S.?

Whether or not Israeli spies had detailed foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, the Israeli authorities knew enough to warn the U.S. government in the summer of 2001 that an attack was on the horizon. The British Sunday Telegraph reported on September 16, 2001, that two senior agents with the Mossad were dispatched to Washington in August 2001 "to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many as 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation". The Telegraph quoted a "senior Israeli security official" as saying the Mossad experts had "no specific information about what was being planned". Still, the official told the Telegraph, the Mossad contacts had "linked the plot to Osama bin Laden". Likewise, Die Zeit correspondent Oliver Schröm reported that on August 23, 2001, the Mossad "handed its American counterpart a list of names of terrorists who were staying in the U.S. and were presumably planning to launch an attack in the foreseeable future". Fox News' Carl Cameron, in May 2002, also reported warnings by Israel: "Based on its own intelligence, the Israeli government provided 'general' information to the United States in the second week of August that an al-Qaeda attack was imminent". The U.S. government later claimed these warnings were not specific enough to allow any mitigating action to be taken. Mossad expert Gordon Thomas, author of Gideon's Spies, says German intelligence sources told him that as late as August 2001 Israeli spies in the United States had made surveillance contacts with "known supporters of bin Laden in the U.S.A. It was those surveillance contacts that later raised the question: how much prior knowledge did Mossad have and at what stage?"

According to Die Zeit, the Mossad did provide the U.S. government with the names of suspected terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, who would eventually hijack the Pentagon plane. It is worth noting that Mihdhar and Hazmi were among the hijackers who operated in close proximity to Israeli "art students" in Hollywood, Florida, and to the Urban Moving Systems Israelis in northern New Jersey. Moreover, Hazmi and at least three "art students" visited Oklahoma City on almost the same dates, from April 1 through April 4, 2001. On August 24, 2001, a day after the Mossad's briefing, Mihdhar and Hazmi were placed by the CIA on a terrorist watch list; additionally, it was only after the Mossad warning, as reported by Die Zeit, that the CIA, on August 27, informed the FBI of the presence of the two terrorists. But by then the cell was already in hiding, preparing for attack.

The CIA, along with the 9/11 Commission in its adoption of the CIA story, claims that Mihdhar and Hazmi were placed on the watch list solely due to the agency's own efforts, with no help from Mossad. Their explanation of how the pair came to be placed on the watch list, however, is far from credible and may have served as a cover story to obscure the Mossad briefing [See Ketcham's sidebar story -- "The Kuala Lumpur Deceit"]. This brings up the possibility that the CIA may have known about the existence of the alleged Israeli agents and their mission, but sought, naturally, to keep it quiet. A second, more troubling scenario, is that the CIA may have subcontracted to Mossad, given that the agency was both prohibited by law from conducting intelligence operations on U.S. soil, and lacked a pool of competent Arabic-fluent field officers. In such a scenario, the CIA would either have worked actively with the Israelis or quietly abetted an independent operation on U.S. soil. In his 9/11 investigative book, The Looming Tower, author Lawrence Wright notes that FBI counterterrorism agents, infuriated at the CIA's failure to fully share information about Mihdhar and Hazmi, speculated that "the agency was shielding Mihdhar and Hazmi because it hoped to recruit them". The two al-Qaeda men, Wright notes, "must have seemed like attractive opportunities; however, once they entered the United States they were the province of the FBI..." Wright further observes that the CIA's reticence to share its information was due to a fear "that prosecutions resulting from specific intelligence might compromise its relationship with foreign services". When in the spring of 2002 the scenario of CIA's domestic subcontracting to foreign intelligence was posed to the veteran CIA/NSA intelligence operative, with whom I spoke extensively, the operative didn't reject it out of hand. The operative noted that in recent years the CIA's human intelligence assets, known as "humint" ­- spooks on the ground who conduct surveillances, make contacts, and infiltrate the enemy ­- had been "eviscerated" in favor of the NSA's far less perilous "sigint", or signals intelligence program, the remote interception of electronic communications. As a result, "U.S. intelligence finds itself going back to sources that you may not necessarily like to go back to, but are required to", the veteran intelligence operative said. "We don't like the fact, but our humint structures are gone. Israeli intel's humint is as strong as ever. If you have an intel gap, those gaps are not closed overnight. It takes years and years of diligent work, a high degree of security, talented and dedicated people, willing management and a steady hand. It is not a fun business, and it's certainly not one without its dangers. If you lose that capability, well organizations find themselves having to make a pact with the devil. The problem [in U.S. intel] is very great".

If such an understanding did exist between CIA and Mossad with regard to al-Qaeda's U.S. operatives, the complicity would explain a number of oddities: it would explain the CIA's nearly incoherent, and perhaps purposely deceptive, reconstruction of events as to how Mihdhar and Hazmi joined the watch list; it might even explain the apparent brazenness of the Israeli New Jersey cell celebrating on the morning of 9/11 (protected under the CIA wing, they were free to behave as they pleased). It would also explain the assertion in one of the leading Israeli dailies, Yedioth Ahronoth, that in the months prior to 9/11, when the Israeli "art students" were being identified and rounded up, the CIA "actively promoted their expulsion". The implication in the Yedioth Ahronoth article was that the CIA was simply being careless, not trying to spirit the Israelis safely out of the country. At this point we cannot be certain. ...

... The Questions That Await Answers

Remarkably, the Urban Moving Systems Israelis, when interrogated by the FBI, explained their motives for "celebration" on the New Jersey waterfront a celebration that consisted of cheering, smiling, shooting film with still and video cameras and, according to the FBI, "high-fiving" ­- in the Machiavellian light of geopolitics. "Their explanation of why they were happy", FBI spokesman Margolin told me, "was that the United States would now have to commit itself to fighting [Middle East] terrorism, that Americans would have an understanding and empathy for Israel's circumstances, and that the attacks were ultimately a good thing for Israel". When reporters on the morning of 9/11 asked former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the effect the attacks would have on Israeli- American relations, he responded with a similar gut analysis: "It's very good", he remarked. Then he amended the statement: "Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel from Americans]".

What is perhaps most damning is that the Israelis' celebration on the New Jersey waterfront occurred in the first sixteen minutes after the initial crash, when no one was aware this was a terrorist attack. In other words, from the time the first plane hit the north tower, at 8:46 a.m., to the time the second plane hit the south tower, at 9:02 a.m., the overwhelming assumption of news outlets and government officials was that the plane's impact was simply a terrible accident. It was only after the second plane hit that suspicions were aroused. Yet if the men were cheering for political reasons, as they reportedly told the FBI, they obviously believed they were witnessing a terrorist act, and not an accident.

After returning safely to Israel in the late autumn of 2001, three of the five New Jersey Israelis spoke on a national talk show that winter. Oded Ellner, who on the afternoon of September 11 had, like his compatriots, protested to arresting officer Sgt. Dennis Rivelli that "we're Israeli", admitted to the interviewer: "We are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event". By his own admission, then, Ellner stood on the New Jersey waterfront documenting with film and video a terrorist act before anyone knew it was a terrorist act.

One obvious question among many comes to mind: If these men were trained as professional spies, why did they exhibit such outright oafishness at the moment of truth on the waterfront? The ABC network source close to the 20/20 report noted one of the more disturbing explanations proffered by counterintelligence investigators at the FBI: "The Israelis felt that in some way their intelligence had worked out ­- i.e., they were celebrating their own acumen and ability as intelligence agents". ...

...The suspects are gone. The trail is cold. Yet many of the key facts and promising leads sit freely on the web, in the archives, safe in the news-morgues at 20/20 and The Forward and Die Zeit. An investigator close to the matter says it reminds him of the Antonioni film "Blow-Up", a movie about a photographer who discovers the evidence of a covered-up murder hidden before his very eyes in the frame of an enlarged photograph. It's a mystery that no one appears eager to solve.

...We’ve known for years now that George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” We’ve known for almost as long that Bush went fishing afterward.

What we didn’t know is what happened in between the briefing and the fishing, and now Suskind is here to tell us. Bush listened to the briefing, Suskind says, then told the CIA briefer: “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.”

In my view, it's long past time to yank those covers off everyone in bed with evil and finally start kicking ass.

The Muslim Terrorist Apparatus was Created by US Intelligence as a Geopolitical Weapon

Le Nouvel Observateur’s Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski

Originally published 15-21 January 1998

Translated by Jean Martineau

(Editor’s Note: The following article and interview have been suppressed by Google, now a “black-ops” contractor. The background on US backing for the Chechen rebels totally debunks attempts to assign blame for the Boston Marathon bombings to any group other than American security agencies and their domestic and foreign contractors who were very obvious at the scene, before and after the attack we believe they staged. Without adequate background on how we got where we are, real information can easily be “shaken off” as conspiracy.

If you want real conspiracy, read on and see who the very real conspirators are. G Duff for VT)

Below is our translation of an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski. It is important for three reasons. First, it flatly contradicts the official US justification for giving billions of dollars to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, namely that the US and Saudi Arabia were defending so-called freedom fighters against Soviet aggression.

“Not so,” says Brzezinski. He confirms what opponents have charged: that the US began covert sponsorship of Muslim extremists five months *before* the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He says that after President Carter authorized the covert action: “I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.” Second, the interview is instructive concerning so-called “conspiracy theory.” To be sure, there are plenty of nutty theories out there. And of course, there are plenty of just plain wrong theories.

But as Brzezinski demonstrates, the US foreign policy establishment did, for want of a better word, conspire. Even as they claimed to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly fomented it *as a weapon of policy.* And they lied about what they were doing, pretending they were helping freedom fighters resist an invasion. In other words, deceit on two levels.

One must ask oneself: if the US foreign policy Establishment used Muslim extremism as a weapon once, how can one argue *in principle* that they would not use it again? We say they *have* used it again; that they have used it continuously; and that we are seeing the fruits of this policy. Most recently we have seen the real essence of the Brzezinski doctrine in the horrendous events this past week in Russia (culminating in the school attack) and Israel (the double bus bombing). ...

...The Associated Press referred to Khalilzad as a “some-time paid adviser to the State Department on Afghanistan.” This was in the late summer of 1985. Less than three years later Tass, the Soviet news agency, reported that Khalilzad was delivering the mujahedeen an important message from the State Department. Khalilzad told them that the State Department would continue to support them:

a) only if they could consolidate control of Afghanistan and

b) only if they maintained an attitude of implacable hostility to the government in Kabul.

In other words the US ordered the mujahedeen not to make peace: ...

...BOSNIA

Brzezinski’s interview has tremendous importance today. According to a Dutch intelligence report on Bosnia, in the early 1990s Pentagon intelligence worked with the Saudis and Iranians to bring weapons and mujahedeen terrorists the ‘Afghan Arabs’ – into Bosnia to indoctrinate and lead Alija Izetbegovic’s Muslim extremists in fighting the Bosnian Serbs.

The same terrorists had been used against the pro-Soviet side in Afghanistan. Once again the media lied, claiming the Bosnian Serbs were fighting to destroy the Bosnian Muslims (i.e., genocide) when they were in fact defending their communities from the mujahedeen, and were allied with a large group of moderate Muslims. ...

... The white costumes these troops are wearing are the uniforms of Middle Eastern mujahedeen, not Yugoslav Muslims. The Bosnian Muslim troops wore them because they had been indoctrinated by Muslim extremists, including mujahedeen imported by Iran, Saudi Arabia and other extremist states, with the participation of Pentagon intelligence. In the early part of the Bosnian conflict (up until January 1993) Zalmay Khalilzad, the protégé of Zginew Brzezinski, was in charge of strategic planning at the Pentagon.

In Afghanistan (as Brzezinski proudly states) and then in Bosnia, the US sponsored Muslim terror even as the State Department was officially condemning it. Because ordinary people would never support such a policy, it was sold to the public as support for freedom fighters (Afghanistan) or as defense of abused Muslims (Bosnia.)

By the late 1980s Brzezinski’s protégé, Prof. Zalmay Khalilzad, was the top strategist of the Afghan war.

Under the administration of Bush, Sr., Khalilzad was in charge of strategy at the Pentagon. We have substantial evidence that it was under Bush, Sr., not Clinton, that the US began assisting the mujahedeen in Bosnia.

So, in both cases, we have Brzezinski’s protégé directing the use of Muslim extremism as a weapon against a secular state, with the media misrepresenting the nature of the fight. The Brzezinski Doctrine in action.

2001: Brzezinski’s protégé Zalmay Khalilzad was appointed Senior National Security Director for Southwest Asia, the heartland of Muslim extremist terror…

Khalilzad was in charge of US policy on the ground in Afghanistan before and during the 2001 war. He then personally chose the Afghan government. It was under his watch that the US and Iran cooperated in convening a top level conference to give Afghanistan a government based on Muslim religious law. Now he’s Ambassador and Special Envoy to Afghanistan.

Even while Khalilzad was in charge of Afghanistan he was also the key man on the ground before, during and after the invasion of Iraq. He was in charge of political relations with Iraqi exile politicians and the Iranian and Saudi governments up until the fall 2003. A crucial period. ...

... So Brzezinski has been the key hands-on strategist, the leader on the ground, in a vast area plagued with Muslim extremist terror during most of the so-called war on terror. ...

...Brzezinski’s Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur

Le Nouvel Observateur: Former CIA director Robert Gates states in his memoirs: The American secret services began six months before the Soviet intervention to support the Mujahideen [in Afghanistan]. At that time you were president Carters security advisor; thus you played a key role in this affair. Do you confirm this statement?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version, the CIA’s support for the Mujahideen began in 1980, i.e. after the Soviet army’s invasion of Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, which was kept secret until today, is completely different:

Actually it was on 3 July 1979 that president Carter signed the first directive for the secret support of the opposition against the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day I wrote a note, in which I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets. ...

...Le Nouvel Observateur: When the Soviets justified their intervention with the statement that they were fighting against a secret US interference in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. Nevertheless there was a core of truth to this…Do you regret nothing today?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Regret what? This secret operation was an excellent idea. It lured the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you would like me to regret that? On the day when the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote president Carter, in essence:

“We now have the opportunity to provide the USSR with their Viet Nam war.” Indeed for ten years Moscow had to conduct a war that was intolerable for the regime, a conflict which involved the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire.

Le Nouvel Observateur: And also, don’t you regret having helped future terrorists, having given them weapons and advice?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: What is most important for world history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? Some Islamic hotheads or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Le Nouvel Observateur: “Some hotheads?” But it has been said time and time again: today Islamic fundamentalism represents a world-wide threat…

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Rubbish! It’s said that the West has a global policy regarding Islam. That’s hogwash: there is no global Islam. ...

Such psychopathy as is found among the US PTB and their lackeys, who've long since invaded and taken over the US government in part to create the ability to invade and take over others at American taxpayer and other expense, knows no bounds and cannot be 'reformed' or blindly given the benefit of the doubt...

We might ask ourselves, had this happened elsewhere, in what other country would America's domestic and global corporate/military/police state-controlled situation not be considered a fascist evil?

#6.2.1.1.2
The question is, are they covering up a Nefarious Evil Plan, or the egregious extent of their shockingly abysmal incompetence? (When dealing with government, any government, incompetence is totally to be expected. Extreme incompetence, however, is not quite so usual.)

up

6 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Of course they're covering *something* up The question is, are they covering up a Nefarious Evil Plan, or the egregious extent of their shockingly abysmal incompetence? (When dealing with government, any government, incompetence is totally to be expected. Extreme incompetence, however, is not quite so usual.)

And that's why we need the actual information I called for: the exact names and times of overt acts committed by American government affiliate persons in direct furtherance of the 9/11 attacks.

It's way too easy to classify shit. And way too easy to abuse the classification system to cover up shit, especially when one is dealing with the kind pf person who would cover up by default, even when openness and transparency would serve better.

#6.2.1.1.2
The question is, are they covering up a Nefarious Evil Plan, or the egregious extent of their shockingly abysmal incompetence? (When dealing with government, any government, incompetence is totally to be expected. Extreme incompetence, however, is not quite so usual.)

up

1 user has voted.

—

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

Is that not evidence in itself that something is wrong with the official story? After all, if the official story is so true, what need is there to cover anything up?

Or does you rather fanciful understanding (based on a mangled Carl Sagan quote) of what constitutes legitimate evidence allow you to ignore whatever doesn't fit your preconceived narrative.

The assertion that the US Government directly organized the 9/11 attacks is an affirmative assertion.

Ever since the days of Aristotle (and probably well before), makers of affirmative claims have been required to bring direct affirmative evidence of said claims in order to have these claims considered. This is a foundational axiom of Western logic, and has numerous beneficial applications in modern society. The most famous such application is the concept of "innocent unless and until proven guilty", as I'm sure you know.

So I'm asking for raw, direct affirmative evidence in support of the claim that the US Government directly organized the 9/11 attacks. Not suspicions based on cover-ups. Not circumstantials. Raw direct evidence. The exact names, times, and specific overt acts by American government affiliate persons in direct furtherance of the attacks. As I pointed out to Big Al, if the conspiracy theorists' assertions are correct, then this is a case of high Treason, and the standards set in the US Constitution, Article III, Section 3 are the ones to be followed. I am demanding the exact same thing that the Constitution demands for the same crimes.

Nothing less will do here.

The accusation of full US Government partnership in the 9/11 attacks is a serious one, demanding that the highest quality direct affirmative evidence be available to the public before the accusation is afforded any credence at all, anywhere.

For the record: I am no more inclined to believe the government's narrative, propped up as it is by classification and cover-ups, than I am to believe the conspiracy theorists' one. TheOtherMaven's got the right attitude here: believe neither.

Unfortunately, this increases the need for the public to have access to the raw direct affirmative evidence body, and we know things aren't moving in that direction at all.

The government’s possible suppression of evidence of Saudi support for the 19 hijackers would go beyond passive cover-up. Is the government releasing false information, while continuing to classify documents containing the truth? As the presidential campaign is proving, appearances of government deception have contributed to wary Americans becoming more and more outraged with their elected officials.

Is that not evidence in itself that something is wrong with the official story? After all, if the official story is so true, what need is there to cover anything up?

Or does you rather fanciful understanding (based on a mangled Carl Sagan quote) of what constitutes legitimate evidence allow you to ignore whatever doesn't fit your preconceived narrative.

Moreover, if the government is indeed suppressing evidence (likely) how can you be so quick to dismiss alternative narratives. Maybe you simply haven't found the evidence you claim you need because you haven't been allowed to see it.

Or maybe you just don't want to see it.

up

1 user has voted.

—

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

@thanatokephaloides
regardless of who else believes what, you still can't come to a reasonable self conclusion as to who was probably involved in 9/11? Or do you think it was Osama bin Laden, 19 terrorists and that's that? We're not lawyers here, we're citizens demanding answers from our government that lies to us every damn day and has lied to us about 9/11. A premise I follow, I don't believe the government rationale for any wars, and two wars were directly started and are still being waged because of 9/11, and ALL war is a lie.
Therefore, the government story for 9/11 is a lie. It's not so hard.

Is that not evidence in itself that something is wrong with the official story? After all, if the official story is so true, what need is there to cover anything up?

Or does you rather fanciful understanding (based on a mangled Carl Sagan quote) of what constitutes legitimate evidence allow you to ignore whatever doesn't fit your preconceived narrative.

The assertion that the US Government directly organized the 9/11 attacks is an affirmative assertion.

Ever since the days of Aristotle (and probably well before), makers of affirmative claims have been required to bring direct affirmative evidence of said claims in order to have these claims considered. This is a foundational axiom of Western logic, and has numerous beneficial applications in modern society. The most famous such application is the concept of "innocent unless and until proven guilty", as I'm sure you know.

So I'm asking for raw, direct affirmative evidence in support of the claim that the US Government directly organized the 9/11 attacks. Not suspicions based on cover-ups. Not circumstantials. Raw direct evidence. The exact names, times, and specific overt acts by American government affiliate persons in direct furtherance of the attacks. As I pointed out to Big Al, if the conspiracy theorists' assertions are correct, then this is a case of high Treason, and the standards set in the US Constitution, Article III, Section 3 are the ones to be followed. I am demanding the exact same thing that the Constitution demands for the same crimes.

Nothing less will do here.

The accusation of full US Government partnership in the 9/11 attacks is a serious one, demanding that the highest quality direct affirmative evidence be available to the public before the accusation is afforded any credence at all, anywhere.

For the record: I am no more inclined to believe the government's narrative, propped up as it is by classification and cover-ups, than I am to believe the conspiracy theorists' one. TheOtherMaven's got the right attitude here: believe neither.

Unfortunately, this increases the need for the public to have access to the raw direct affirmative evidence body, and we know things aren't moving in that direction at all.

We still don't have this level of information regarding the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. I am therefore not surprised we don't have it for 9/11, either.

Nor do I expect to ever have it.

So call me a Cynic all around. I find it no insult to be likened to the greatest philosophic mind humanity has ever produced (Diogenes of Sinope).

#6.2.1.1.2.2 regardless of who else believes what, you still can't come to a reasonable self conclusion as to who was probably involved in 9/11? Or do you think it was Osama bin Laden, 19 terrorists and that's that? We're not lawyers here, we're citizens demanding answers from our government that lies to us every damn day and has lied to us about 9/11. A premise I follow, I don't believe the government rationale for any wars, and two wars were directly started and are still being waged because of 9/11, and ALL war is a lie.
Therefore, the government story for 9/11 is a lie. It's not so hard.

up

1 user has voted.

—

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

@thanatokephaloides
The constitutional provisions you repeatedly reference as though you are being profound are designed to protect individuals from criminal penalties. They don't have a damned thing to do with the public making political judgments based on evidence they find most persuasive.

If you want a serious look give critics the same resources used by the commission. Then we'll take a look at what they come up with.

And, much like yourself, I've yet to see anything which would directly and affirmatively support the claim that the US Government caused 9/11 as some sort of "false flag" event. As I pointed out earlier, circumstantials and suspicions won't cut it here. Those who want to present 9/11 conspiracy theories as some sort of "truth" need to cone up with the same caliber of evidence the Constitution demands for such: actual affirmative facts demonstrating exactly what overt acts were committed by which Americans and when to further this crime.

If you want a serious look give critics the same resources used by the commission. Then we'll take a look at what they come up with.

More to the point, publish the raw resources so we can see what we come up with.

I have no expectation of that ever happening. Especially in times I have any likelihood of seeing as living man.

#6.2.1.1
The constitutional provisions you repeatedly reference as though you are being profound are designed to protect individuals from criminal penalties. They don't have a damned thing to do with the public making political judgments based on evidence they find most persuasive.

If you want a serious look give critics the same resources used by the commission. Then we'll take a look at what they come up with.

up

2 users have voted.

—

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

In the summer of 2001, I needed a book to read - I didn't have a cell phone then and was an avid reader. The only book in the house that I hadn't read yet, turned out to be a book on conspiracy theories which basically read like the plot of the X-Files. As I started to read it, I felt more and more depressed. It's not that I necessarily believed every word of it, but it made me think, and I had honestly never thought about things like that before. Back then, I paid absolutely no attention to politics and was blissfully unaware of the current headlines, scandals, etc. The sinking feeling I had reading this book was hard to describe.
As I was reading it, I tried to discuss some of these conspiracy theories with my co-workers. All of my black co-workers had no problem believing these theories and two of them asked to borrow the book. All of my white co-workers dismissed the theories immediately saying they were crazy and no way our gov't would do things like that. I'm only mentioning that because I thought it was interesting. Anyway, one of the predictions the book made was that our gov't would carry out a false flag attack in the US as a way to suspend parts of the constitution. A month or so later, 9/11, the wars, the Patriot Act. I was waiting for someone to comment on that coincidence, but I didn't have a computer then, and all I ever saw was one bumper sticker that said "new world order" with a picture of the twin towers.

to believe the truth about 9/11. If Americans were to have accepted the fact that their own Government (rather obviously) did did what it, the entire political and moral structure of the government would have crumbled. Right then and there, along with the towers.

9/11 was not an ordinary "crime". It was a military attack, orchestrated from within the USG itself, and intended to force US policy along a predetermined course. Possibly the most amazing thing about it (and the most frightening thing) is that it actually worked. It worked like a charm. The 9/11 operation was terrorism on a grand scale -- so grand, so lavish, and so monumentally theatrical, that no one dared to suggest it might have been a false flag attack.

To even suggest such an outlandish thing, would have been to suggest that the US Government was both capable and willing to murder thousands of its own citizens for some covert purpose. And who "in their right mind" would have wanted to believe that? Well, quite a few of us as it turns out, but still not nearly enough.

@native
That's exactly how I feel about it. Remember - they consider casualties "collateral damage," which dehumanizes us all. That's what those people were - collateral damage - and they have the gall to put on a shameful display to "honor" the fallen every anniversary. What a sham! What a hoax! Wake up, America - we are all at risk because we are all considered to be potential "collateral damage."!

to believe the truth about 9/11. If Americans were to have accepted the fact that their own Government (rather obviously) did did what it, the entire political and moral structure of the government would have crumbled. Right then and there, along with the towers.

9/11 was not an ordinary "crime". It was a military attack, orchestrated from within the USG itself, and intended to force US policy along a predetermined course. Possibly the most amazing thing about it (and the most frightening thing) is that it actually worked. It worked like a charm. The 9/11 operation was terrorism on a grand scale -- so grand, so lavish, and so monumentally theatrical, that no one dared to suggest it might have been a false flag attack.

To even suggest such an outlandish thing, would have been to suggest that the US Government was both capable and willing to murder thousands of its own citizens for some covert purpose. And who "in their right mind" would have wanted to believe that? Well, quite a few of us as it turns out, but still not nearly enough.

up

16 users have voted.

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

#8
That's exactly how I feel about it. Remember - they consider casualties "collateral damage," which dehumanizes us all. That's what those people were - collateral damage - and they have the gall to put on a shameful display to "honor" the fallen every anniversary. What a sham! What a hoax! Wake up, America - we are all at risk because we are all considered to be potential "collateral damage."!

Attacks in NYC kills 3+K people, more than the attack in 1941 in Hawaii, 16yr war has now killed millions of people our soldiers and many civilians, as well as the hostile combatants as they are called.Resources grabbed and or pilfered, the Nova Roman Empire must have wars to maintain itself or collapse under the immense weight of the upper crusties who are nothing but parasites to my mind.

Attacks in NYC kills 3+K people, more than the attack in 1941 in Hawaii, 16yr war has now killed millions of people our soldiers and many civilians, as well as the hostile combatants as they are called.Resources grabbed and or pilfered, the Nova Roman Empire must have wars to maintain itself or collapse under the immense weight of the upper crusties who are nothing but parasites to my mind.

Citizens have no obligation or jurisdiction to prosecute the guilty. That is what they hire the government to do. When the government's investigation ignores eyewitness evidence (multiple explosions, molten metal, underground heat, extraordinary dust, extraordinary damage to neighboring buildings and vehicles) and ignores multiple lines of inquiry (stock transactions, surveillance camera evidence or lack thereof, accounts of forewarning, disposal of physical evidence, military standoffs) citizens have the right to ask for a more complete investigation. When that does not occur, citizens have the right to draw their own conclusions based upon what they see to be the dynamics of the benefits accrued by the players involved.

Citizens have no obligation or jurisdiction to prosecute the guilty. That is what they hire the government to do. When the government's investigation ignores eyewitness evidence (multiple explosions, molten metal, underground heat, extraordinary dust, extraordinary damage to neighboring buildings and vehicles) and ignores multiple lines of inquiry (stock transactions, surveillance camera evidence or lack thereof, accounts of forewarning, disposal of physical evidence, military standoffs) citizens have the right to ask for a more complete investigation. When that does not occur, citizens have the right to draw their own conclusions based upon what they see to be the dynamics of the benefits accrued by the players involved.

up

3 users have voted.

—

Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.

I confess, I didn't read all the comments. I just don't see the point of endlessly telling us that the US Gov't did bad stuff that day, and here's why:

The US gov't does terrible things. All day, every day. In my name, even. I hate that. Also: I can't personally make it stop. You don't need to convince me: it's totally despicable and worthy of a national (even global) uprising.

And then?

Do you want us to "hold people accountable"? Great, but ¿how?, when you know that the people responsible don't need to abide by "laws", or even "human decency"? And if they are "held accountable", how much more effort do we need to expend to get accountability for the endless number of other horrifying, sadistic, genocidal, inhumane behaviors that the US Imperium inflicts on the rest of the world? It never ends! Your little issue, over a decade old, doesn't approach answers to the current crimes.

It's nice that you have something to focus on, and many of the folks older than I are focused on "who really killed Kennedy", and before that, Lincoln, and stuff. Who cares? Planting a flag on those old issues takes energy & focus away from what's on our plate now.

What is your point? Because your point seems to be "I TOLD ya". And that's not making the world a better place, frankly. Yes, we get it, the US Govt does evil in our name. So give me a way to stop it, now!

Otherwise, it's just preaching to the impotent choir.

up

4 users have voted.

—

“We may not be able to change the system, but we can make the system irrelevant in our lives and in the lives of those around us.”—John Beckett

@yellopig
We are preaching to the choir. That's all we fucking do.
That's all you just fucking did.
If you and others on here, like Untimely Ripped, don't want me preaching, then just fucking say it. I'll fucking leave, O fucking K?
Jesus.

It's all true. So?

I confess, I didn't read all the comments. I just don't see the point of endlessly telling us that the US Gov't did bad stuff that day, and here's why:

The US gov't does terrible things. All day, every day. In my name, even. I hate that. Also: I can't personally make it stop. You don't need to convince me: it's totally despicable and worthy of a national (even global) uprising.

And then?

Do you want us to "hold people accountable"? Great, but ¿how?, when you know that the people responsible don't need to abide by "laws", or even "human decency"? And if they are "held accountable", how much more effort do we need to expend to get accountability for the endless number of other horrifying, sadistic, genocidal, inhumane behaviors that the US Imperium inflicts on the rest of the world? It never ends! Your little issue, over a decade old, doesn't approach answers to the current crimes.

It's nice that you have something to focus on, and many of the folks older than I are focused on "who really killed Kennedy", and before that, Lincoln, and stuff. Who cares? Planting a flag on those old issues takes energy & focus away from what's on our plate now.

What is your point? Because your point seems to be "I TOLD ya". And that's not making the world a better place, frankly. Yes, we get it, the US Govt does evil in our name. So give me a way to stop it, now!

#13 We are preaching to the choir. That's all we fucking do.
That's all you just fucking did.
If you and others on here, like Untimely Ripped, don't want me preaching, then just fucking say it. I'll fucking leave, O fucking K?
Jesus.

#13 We are preaching to the choir. That's all we fucking do.
That's all you just fucking did.
If you and others on here, like Untimely Ripped, don't want me preaching, then just fucking say it. I'll fucking leave, O fucking K?
Jesus.

@Big Al
It's important. I'm in said choir and I still need to read about it everyday in order to steady my resolve to stay engaged. A difference can be made and it can be made by the choir. Thank you.

#13 We are preaching to the choir. That's all we fucking do.
That's all you just fucking did.
If you and others on here, like Untimely Ripped, don't want me preaching, then just fucking say it. I'll fucking leave, O fucking K?
Jesus.

up

6 users have voted.

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

I confess, I didn't read all the comments. I just don't see the point of endlessly telling us that the US Gov't did bad stuff that day, and here's why:

The US gov't does terrible things. All day, every day. In my name, even. I hate that. Also: I can't personally make it stop. You don't need to convince me: it's totally despicable and worthy of a national (even global) uprising.

And then?

Do you want us to "hold people accountable"? Great, but ¿how?, when you know that the people responsible don't need to abide by "laws", or even "human decency"? And if they are "held accountable", how much more effort do we need to expend to get accountability for the endless number of other horrifying, sadistic, genocidal, inhumane behaviors that the US Imperium inflicts on the rest of the world? It never ends! Your little issue, over a decade old, doesn't approach answers to the current crimes.

It's nice that you have something to focus on, and many of the folks older than I are focused on "who really killed Kennedy", and before that, Lincoln, and stuff. Who cares? Planting a flag on those old issues takes energy & focus away from what's on our plate now.

What is your point? Because your point seems to be "I TOLD ya". And that's not making the world a better place, frankly. Yes, we get it, the US Govt does evil in our name. So give me a way to stop it, now!

Perhaps because the propagators entangled in the long-expanding roots of the process continuing now through each new US administration carrying on the same destructive agenda need to be identified, dug up, and eliminated from public policy and the public service?

It's all true. So?

I confess, I didn't read all the comments. I just don't see the point of endlessly telling us that the US Gov't did bad stuff that day, and here's why:

The US gov't does terrible things. All day, every day. In my name, even. I hate that. Also: I can't personally make it stop. You don't need to convince me: it's totally despicable and worthy of a national (even global) uprising.

And then?

Do you want us to "hold people accountable"? Great, but ¿how?, when you know that the people responsible don't need to abide by "laws", or even "human decency"? And if they are "held accountable", how much more effort do we need to expend to get accountability for the endless number of other horrifying, sadistic, genocidal, inhumane behaviors that the US Imperium inflicts on the rest of the world? It never ends! Your little issue, over a decade old, doesn't approach answers to the current crimes.

It's nice that you have something to focus on, and many of the folks older than I are focused on "who really killed Kennedy", and before that, Lincoln, and stuff. Who cares? Planting a flag on those old issues takes energy & focus away from what's on our plate now.

What is your point? Because your point seems to be "I TOLD ya". And that's not making the world a better place, frankly. Yes, we get it, the US Govt does evil in our name. So give me a way to stop it, now!

Otherwise, it's just preaching to the impotent choir.

up

1 user has voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

those interested in what 'our' government may be doing to us without telling us, and which has shock doctrine type effects, might be interested in weather manipulations. GeoengineeringWatch.org is a place to start.

those interested in what 'our' government may be doing to us without telling us, and which has shock doctrine type effects, might be interested in weather manipulations. GeoengineeringWatch.org is a place to start.

up

0 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.